Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] ipv6: Honor route mtu if it is within limit of dev mtu

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 00:33:02 -0700 Maciej Żenczykowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 10:36 PM Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan (KS) <quic_subashab@quicinc.com> wrote:
> > >> CC maze, please add him if there is v3
> > >>
> > >> I feel like the problem is with the fact that link mtu resets protocol
> > >> MTUs. Nothing we can do about that, so why not set link MTU to 9k (or
> > >> whatever other quantification of infinity there is) so you don't have
> > >> to touch it as you discover the MTU for v4 and v6?  
> >
> > That's a good point.  
> 
> Because link mtu affects rx mtu which affects nic buffer allocations.
> Somewhere in the vicinity of mtu 1500..2048 your packets stop fitting
> in 2kB of memory and need 4kB (or more)

I was afraid someone would point that out :) Luckily the values Subash
mentioned were both under 2k, and hope fully the device can do scatter? 
🤞😟 (Don't modems do LRO or some other form of aggregation usually?)

> > >> My worry is that the tweaking of the route MTU update heuristic will
> > >> have no end.
> > >>
> > >> Stefano, does that makes sense or you think the change is good?  
> >
> > The only concern is that current behavior causes the initial packets
> > after interface MTU increase to get dropped as part of PMTUD if the IPv6
> > PMTU itself didn't increase. I am not sure if that was the intended
> > behavior as part of the original change. Stefano, could you please confirm?
> >  
> > > I vaguely recall that if you don't want device mtu changes to affect
> > > ipv6 route mtu, then you should set 'mtu lock' on the routes.
> > > (this meaning of 'lock' for v6 is different than for ipv4, where
> > > 'lock' means transmit IPv4/TCP with Don't Frag bit unset)  
> >
> > I assume 'mtu lock' here refers to setting the PMTU on the IPv6 routes
> > statically. The issue with that approach is that router advertisements
> > can no longer update PMTU once a static route is configured.  
> 
> yeah.   Hmm should RA generated routes use locked mtu too?
> I think the only reason an RA generated route would have mtu information
> is for it to stick...

If link MTU is lower than RA MTU do we do min() or ignore the RA MTU?