From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi  Tue Jan 22 17:27:58 2008
X-Original-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de
Delivered-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de
Message-ID: <473B68F2.2020001@atari-source.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:30:26 -0500
From: Mark Duckworth <mduckworth@atari-source.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Slegg <p.slegg@scubadivers.co.uk>
Cc: mint@fishpool.com
Subject: Re: [MiNT] Mintnet success ?
References: <0013b120.0175cae81b61@smtp.freeola.net>
In-Reply-To: <0013b120.0175cae81b61@smtp.freeola.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi
Errors-To: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi
X-original-sender: mduckworth@atari-source.com
Precedence: bulk
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=help>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
X-List-ID: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
List-subscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=subscribe>
List-owner: <mailto:tjhukkan@fishpool.fi>
List-post: <mailto:mint@lists.fishpool.fi>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at relay.boerde.de
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on relay.boerde.de
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 tagged_above=-50.5 required=7.0 tests=BAYES_00
X-Spam-Level: 
Status: 
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                   

The MTU of ethernet is 1500.  Under will definitely work fine, but you 
will incur more overhead.  Sounds to me like you're ahead of the game 
though seeing as how it's actually working.  I don't think this is 
negotiable when it comes to setting it higher though :-P  The fact that 
it's working indicates an undersized/corrupted buffer somewhere (or 
perhaps a defect with the card).

Thanks,
Mark


Peter Slegg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Ekkehard has been good enough to help me investigate my
> problem sending emails and ftp'ing files up to my server.
>
> He suggested changing the mtu size to 8k since it looked
> like this
>
> lo0:    flags=0x4b<UP,BROADCAST,LOOPBACK,RUNNING>
>         inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 127.0.0.255
>         metric 0 mtu 16384
>         in-packets  4 in-errors  0 collisions 0
>         out-packets 4 out-errors 0
> rtk0:   flags=0x43<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING>
>         inet 192.168.0.201 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.0.255
>         metric 0 mtu 1500
>         in-packets  71 in-errors  0 collisions 0
>         out-packets 120 out-errors 8
>
>
> However when I tried this it didn't work.
>
> bash-2.05a# ifconfig rtk0 addr 192.168.0.201 netmask 255.255.255.0
>             broadaddr 192.168.0.255 mtu 2000 up > /dev/null
> bash-2.05a# ping 192.168.0.1
> PING 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1): 56 data bytes
> ping: sendto: Network is unreachable
>
> I wasn't sure what was wrong so I changed rc.net thus:
>
> ifconfig $intrfc addr $ipaddr netmask $netmask broadaddr $broadaddr
>  mtu 8000 up > /dev/null 2>&1
>
> With this it can ping devices but this didn't fix the network problem.
> So out of curiosity I tried setting mtu to something less than 1500,
> just 1000.
>
> Amazingly, I was able to send a large email (50k ish) and ftp
> some large files.
>
> I now have it set to 1300 and I am able to work normally.
>
> A year or so ago, I reported that I couldn't ping with a packet
> size greater than 1500. Is this possibly related ?  It seems
> to me that there is some problem with packet sizes.
> Could someone try setting mtu bigger than 1500.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>