> 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.
I think the slave interface mtu will be used.
> I'm testing this post-up hook which I think covers all of the cases.
yep that script looks good.
only thing i can think of is, what if an interface's inet6 section is
specified (and setup) first, before the interface's inet section? e.g.
auto eth0
iface eth0 inet6 static
address 2001:dbe::1/64
mtu 1480
iface eth0 inet static
address 10.0.0.1
mtu 1500
would that cause the device mtu to be (re)set to 1500, after the ipv6
mtu had been set? That would reset the ipv6 mtu to 1500. Can the
ordering of inet/inet6 sections always be inet before inet6?
--
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
