Re: ip6-in-ip{4,6} ipsec tunnel issues with 1280 MTU

[Ashwanth Goli <ashwanth@codeaurora.org>]

On 2018-04-27 20:18, David Ahern wrote:
> On 4/27/18 5:02 AM, Ashwanth Goli wrote:
>> On 2018-04-26 17:21, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> [fixed CC list]
>>> 
>>> On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 21:43 +0530, Ashwanth Goli wrote:
>>>> Hi Pablo,
>>> 
>>> Actually I'm Paolo, but yours is a recurring mistake ;)
>>> 
>>>> I am noticing an issue similar to the one reported by Alexis Perez
>>>> [Regression for ip6-in-ip4 IPsec tunnel in 4.14.16]
>>>> 
>>>> In my IPsec setup outer MTU is set to 1280, ip6_setup_cork sees an 
>>>> MTU
>>>> less than IPV6_MIN_MTU because of the tunnel headers. -EINVAL is 
>>>> being
>>>> returned as a result of the MTU check that got added with below 
>>>> patch.
> 
> If you know you are running ipsec over the link why are you setting the
> outer MTU to 1280? RFC 2460 suggests the fragmentation of packets for
> links with MTU < 1280 should be done below the IPv6 layer:
> 
> 5. Packet Size Issues
> 
>    IPv6 requires that every link in the internet have an MTU of 1280
>    octets or greater.  On any link that cannot convey a 1280-octet
>    packet in one piece, link-specific fragmentation and reassembly must
>    be provided at a layer below IPv6.
> 
>    Links that have a configurable MTU (for example, PPP links [RFC-
>    1661]) must be configured to have an MTU of at least 1280 octets; it
>    is recommended that they be configured with an MTU of 1500 octets or
>    greater, to accommodate possible encapsulations (i.e., tunneling)
>    without incurring IPv6-layer fragmentation.

But is this not breaking point (b) from section 7.1 of RFC2473 since the 
inner packet can be smaller than 1280.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2473#section-7.1