On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Dan Streetman < dan.streetman+launch...@canonical.com> wrote:
> > In the original bug where one is comparing ip output of MTU; is there > something *not* working ? > > in that original bug, the user is trying to set up ipv6 tunneling: > > "This scenario is quiet common when using tunnels (e.g. Sixxs) to provide > IPv6 > connectivity. My IPv6 MTU needs to be 20 bytes smaller than may IPv4 MTU > because of the tunnel's overhead." > > > Or did we just observe that the bond interface isn't the same MTU? Can > we confirm that without > > the bond interface itself set to MTU 9202 that we don't see the correct > jumbo frames over ipv6? > > this isn't bonding-specific, the example from bug 1609861 just happens > to use bonding. But an regular interface configured with a "inet6" > section mtu of e.g. 9000 and no "inet" section (or an "inet" section but > no mtu in it) will not correctly set the device mtu to 9000. > I understand this scenario; however, what I don't understand is why if we're setting mtu 9002 on the underlying devices, why the mtu on the "virtual" device (bond0) matters vs. the mtu setting of the ipv6 link, especially since this is ipv6 only. Do we see packets actually get fragmented at the bond ? > > -- > You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug > report. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1609367 > > Title: > ifupdown does not set ipv6-only large mtu > > To manage notifications about this bug go to: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ifupdown/+bug/ > 1609367/+subscriptions > -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1609367 Title: ifupdown does not set ipv6-only large mtu To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ifupdown/+bug/1609367/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
