From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Tue Jan 22 17:28:00 2008 X-Original-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Delivered-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAAUUO0eXSa7B/2dsb2JhbAAM In-Reply-To: <0002f323.017c6ae8327a@smtp.freeola.net> References: <473B68F2.2020001@atari-source.com> <0002f323.017c6ae8327a@smtp.freeola.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) X-Priority: 3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Paolo De Felice Subject: Re: [MiNT] Mintnet success ? Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 00:30:47 +0100 To: mint@fishpool.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-To: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: p.defelice@protom-multimedia.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: 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: As far as I know, 1500 is a somehow standard value for ethernet connections. However, it is often tweaked. The most recurring example is when using VPM programs, because the VPN itself adds a few bytes in the packet, so you need to raise the MTU in order to get the packets through. Time ago there were websites that needed a bigger MTU in order to be browsed. The loopback interface isn't affected by this, because it doesn't actually use the ethernet board. Don't quote me on this, though ;-) Il giorno 14/nov/07, alle ore 20:47, Peter Slegg ha scritto: > On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:30:26 -0500, Mark Duckworth > wrote: >> 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 >> > > I've tried several different drivers and 3 different cards so we > can eliminate those possibilities. > > Why does lo0 have mtu bigger than 1500 ? > > lo0: flags=0x4b > inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 127.0.0.255 > metric 0 mtu 16384 > > Is 1500 a Mint limitation ? On a linux box I could ping packets > much bigger than 1500 > > Peter > > > > > >