Thanks for your replies.
We contacted Arris (manufacturer of our CMTS) about this issue with
links to relevant parts of specification about minimum size of VLAN
tagged frames and it seems they'll acknowledge the problem and fix it in
next firmware.
Meantime i tried different suggestions posted th
On 9/21/07, jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-21-09 at 14:34 -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
>
> > I never saw any bugreports about e1000 not being able to accept vlan packets
> > because of this, so I'm quite certain it works OK, feel free to find me a
> > case
> > where this isn't so :)
>
On Fri, 2007-21-09 at 14:34 -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
> I never saw any bugreports about e1000 not being able to accept vlan packets
> because of this, so I'm quite certain it works OK, feel free to find me a case
> where this isn't so :)
If you tell me it can be done on the rx, i will take your wo
On Fri, 2007-21-09 at 14:27 -0700, Chris Leech wrote:
>
> Inserting the VLAN tag in software will not change the behavior in the
> way you want anyway, short frames will still be padded to 64 bytes.
> You'd have to do short packet padding in software to 68 bytes. Or do
> software padding to 64 b
jamal wrote:
>> AFAIK the RX side is fully covered
>
> so you can handle both 64B and 68B?
I never saw any bugreports about e1000 not being able to accept vlan packets
because of this, so I'm quite certain it works OK, feel free to find me a case
where this isn't so :)
Auke
-
To unsubscribe fro
On 9/21/07, jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-21-09 at 08:43 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
>
> > I just re-read the spec, and a bridge *may* pad up to 68, but it is not
> > required.
> > On page 166, it says equipment must be able to handle 64 byte minimums.
> >
> > See page 22 (section 7.
On Fri, 2007-21-09 at 14:18 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> As for using the software stack, I don't think we are padding to 68 in
> the soft vlans either...
Should be much easier than changing firmware or an ASIC.
> It would be nice to have an ethtool to turn off hw vlans for other reasons,
> like s
jamal wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-21-09 at 08:43 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
>
>> I just re-read the spec, and a bridge *may* pad up to 68, but it is not
>> required.
>> On page 166, it says equipment must be able to handle 64 byte minimums.
>>
>> See page 22 (section 7.2) of this document:
>>
>> http://s
jamal wrote:
On Fri, 2007-21-09 at 08:43 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
I just re-read the spec, and a bridge *may* pad up to 68, but it is not
required.
On page 166, it says equipment must be able to handle 64 byte minimums.
See page 22 (section 7.2) of this document:
http://standards.ieee.org/ge
On Fri, 2007-21-09 at 08:43 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> I just re-read the spec, and a bridge *may* pad up to 68, but it is not
> required.
> On page 166, it says equipment must be able to handle 64 byte minimums.
>
> See page 22 (section 7.2) of this document:
>
> http://standards.ieee.org/geti
Emil Micek wrote:
> What is the right behaviour according to specification? In iee802.3,
> minFrameSize is 64bytes. I've never seen any document which'd say that
> VLAN frames should be 68 bytes minimum.
e1000 only hardware pads to 64 bytes, but if you use the vlan module and
turn off the hardware
jamal wrote:
On Fri, 2007-21-09 at 09:37 -0400, jamal wrote:
On Fri, 2007-21-09 at 14:50 +0200, Emil Micek wrote:
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 07:59 -0400, jamal wrote:
Which would make it a bug. AFAIK, the minimum VLAN tagged packet going
out is 68 bytes.
Are you sure about t
On 9/21/07, jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hope that makes sense.
[cut]
> cheers,
> jamal
Hi all,
as far as I understand ieee docs both 64 and 68
approaches are fine...
--- Std 802.1Q-2005, 6.5.1 ---
On receipt of an M_UNITDATA.request primitive that
represents a tagged frame, the implementa
On Fri, 2007-21-09 at 09:37 -0400, jamal wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-21-09 at 14:50 +0200, Emil Micek wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 07:59 -0400, jamal wrote:
>
> > > Which would make it a bug. AFAIK, the minimum VLAN tagged packet going
> > > out is 68 bytes.
> > Are you sure about this?
>
> This i
On Fri, 2007-21-09 at 14:50 +0200, Emil Micek wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 07:59 -0400, jamal wrote:
> > Which would make it a bug. AFAIK, the minimum VLAN tagged packet going
> > out is 68 bytes.
> Are you sure about this?
This is what i have always seen. Double checked with google and she ga
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 07:59 -0400, jamal wrote:
> > Current e1000 (according to our observations) first appends 4 bytes of
> > VLAN tag and then pads the frame to 64 bytes with zeroes if necessary
> > before transmiting it.
>
> Which would make it a bug. AFAIK, the minimum VLAN tagged packet going
On Fri, 2007-21-09 at 09:31 +0200, Emil Micek wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I'd like to change behaviour of e1000 module when transmiting short
> ethernet frames (shorter then 64 bytes) trough VLAN interface.
>
> Current e1000 (according to our observations) first appends 4 bytes of
> VLAN tag and the
17 matches
Mail list logo
