Hi. >> >> If they're actually going to send larger packets then ? as long as we >> make bloody sure we're not going to overflow our allocations ? I >> suspect we're better off actually receiving them. If they made them >> through, why drop? > > I agree. "Be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you transmit." > > In order to do this, I think it'd be good to make the > packet-size-allocation consistent across all supported protocols. > Perhaps by allocating at least a certain amount of headroom above the > negotiated/estimated MTU, say 1024 bytes? I can submit a patch if > that's desirable. FWIW I've resubmitted that patch yesterday with just what you are describing here (but I've used 256 for the headroom size). I've tested it against my use case and it seems to be working - so approach works. You guy obviously can make better or pore appropriate change if you so desire :). Thanks for looking into this! -- Martynov Nikolay. Email: mar.kolya at gmail.com
