> In the original bug where one is comparing ip output of MTU; is there something *not* working ?
in that original bug, the user is trying to set up ipv6 tunneling: "This scenario is quiet common when using tunnels (e.g. Sixxs) to provide IPv6 connectivity. My IPv6 MTU needs to be 20 bytes smaller than may IPv4 MTU because of the tunnel's overhead." > Or did we just observe that the bond interface isn't the same MTU? Can we > confirm that without > the bond interface itself set to MTU 9202 that we don't see the correct jumbo > frames over ipv6? this isn't bonding-specific, the example from bug 1609861 just happens to use bonding. But an regular interface configured with a "inet6" section mtu of e.g. 9000 and no "inet" section (or an "inet" section but no mtu in it) will not correctly set the device mtu to 9000. -- 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
