Re: IP fragmentation (DF) and ip_no_pmtu_disc in 2.2 vs 2.4

From: H. Peter Anvin (hpa@zytor.com)
Date: Fri Dec 01 2000 - 18:47:25 EST

Next message: Peter Samuelson: "Re: [PATCH] mutliple root devs (take II)"
Previous message: T. Camp: "Re: [PATCH] mutliple root devs (take II)"
In reply to: Paul Jakma: "Re: IP fragmentation (DF) and ip_no_pmtu_disc in 2.2 vs 2.4"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Followup to: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0012011902010.5623-100000@rossi.itg.ie>
By author: Paul Jakma <paulj@itg.ie>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > Intel PXE uses tftp to download boot images and discards IP packets with
> > > the DF bit set; so a tftpd server on 2.4 with the default
> >
> > Then Intel PXE is buggy and you should go spank whoever provided
> > it as well as doing the workarounds. Supporting received frames
> > with DF set is mandatory.
> >
>

Intel PXE is buggier than hell. Don't even get me started.

-hpa

-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Peter Samuelson: "Re: [PATCH] mutliple root devs (take II)"
Previous message: T. Camp: "Re: [PATCH] mutliple root devs (take II)"
In reply to: Paul Jakma: "Re: IP fragmentation (DF) and ip_no_pmtu_disc in 2.2 vs 2.4"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 07 2000 - 21:00:08 EST