From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from qs51p00im-qukt01080501.me.com (qs51p00im-qukt01080501.me.com [17.57.155.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91907206970 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 17:21:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=17.57.155.22 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730913666; cv=none; b=B9V8kO7c80zOdY1rz2XgYH+53x9X8kfsAYLf1bptqIdsY6J3+ZHD2DMoRXpj4Dnsb9PJBK4YV2ZncurnALku9J52dWyTMLApiajiEV70wdVE8D8n+A4ZVOg+UK3CbiFx5GIx5wZHnHvClWZgcds2jvFq7y9qQFLhxcWU4Jl/uPg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730913666; c=relaxed/simple; bh=decvzeerzkx1LhgxPluavMUNdn95U1jEx/c/Rh6JuGI=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Cc:Subject:From:To: References:In-Reply-To; b=Jz62+Q/qo5sAEcDfdN93qt3hMeeXLCekhrAIwzKY9VG5kL3ALgjDpqhVFNQYyjfUOHjDxPQ2RBCylMWjBRGpALZ01r64DZYaYFwu9kE9mwKBLxv8TYBfee5NzfrTm2HaypjgMYHPyrQ/bFj36oIz6LWLB16LwZVE9cOxNDqzUOc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=verdict.gg; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=verdict.gg; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=verdict.gg header.i=@verdict.gg header.b=q5rXAI1I; arc=none smtp.client-ip=17.57.155.22 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=verdict.gg Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=verdict.gg Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=verdict.gg header.i=@verdict.gg header.b="q5rXAI1I" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=verdict.gg; s=sig1; t=1730913661; bh=decvzeerzkx1LhgxPluavMUNdn95U1jEx/c/Rh6JuGI=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Subject:From:To: x-icloud-hme; b=q5rXAI1IrsAOVuxrIyGpGUgZwdQXBYGT67zX08lOvT1auz+XBOxcmhSLDO9Z9+BuR iCvx59E87rHVfRljsrzwj7c/t+1B8pVknANe+j3MuSDRK1CnNr6YTSv3woBK1JeLbe vsSuZ6Q/H3xjOcWMwUawSWxBRv2TY5VSWaJXrk/QarWixJCOck+53nKHf0k+/asNSP 1EwhgutL+WmWLhvZQmSSVi3NRcO6ADGbpUBFwRILEnD5/gXHu7RdBSIHko9Gs5atc5 tRemOnqZj2ZR2tlJTXo/xCfpxymW7zFFdQ1m6HrkQZhMivBZhQPb778e8cFqBmIBsX YtE84iSLQVvxg== Received: from localhost (qs51p00im-dlb-asmtp-mailmevip.me.com [17.57.155.28]) by qs51p00im-qukt01080501.me.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 766291980263; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 17:20:58 +0000 (UTC) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2024 20:20:55 +0300 Message-Id: Cc: , Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ipv4: Cache pmtu for all packet paths if multipath enabled From: "Vladimir Vdovin" To: "David Ahern" , "Ido Schimmel" X-Mailer: aerc 0.18.2 References: <20241029152206.303004-1-deliran@verdict.gg> <736cdd43-4c4b-4341-bd77-c9a365dec2e5@kernel.org> <59b0acc7-196c-4ab8-9033-336136a47212@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <59b0acc7-196c-4ab8-9033-336136a47212@kernel.org> X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: NFSgMl2UztetJD27Ot8E9PX1Fiig1IJ9 X-Proofpoint-GUID: NFSgMl2UztetJD27Ot8E9PX1Fiig1IJ9 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.1057,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.62.30 definitions=2024-11-06_05,2024-11-05_01,2024-09-30_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=419 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1030 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2308100000 definitions=main-2411060085 On Tue Nov 5, 2024 at 6:52 AM MSK, David Ahern wrote: > On 11/2/24 10:20 AM, Vladimir Vdovin wrote: > >> > >> Doesn't IPv6 suffer from a similar problem? > > I believe the answer is yes, but do not have time to find a reproducer > right now. > > >=20 > > I am not very familiar with ipv6, > > but I tried to reproduce same problem with my tests with same topology. > >=20 > > ip netns exec ns_a-AHtoRb ip -6 r g fc00:1001::2:2 sport 30003 dport 44= 3 > > fc00:1001::2:2 via fc00:2::2 dev veth_A-R2 src fc00:1000::1:1 metric 10= 24 expires 495sec mtu 1500 pref medium > >=20 > > ip netns exec ns_a-AHtoRb ip -6 r g fc00:1001::2:2 sport 30013 dport 44= 3 > > fc00:1001::2:2 via fc00:1::2 dev veth_A-R1 src fc00:1000::1:1 metric 10= 24 expires 484sec mtu 1500 pref medium > >=20 > > It seems that there are no problems with ipv6. We have nhce entries for= both paths. > > Does rt6_cache_allowed_for_pmtu return true or false for this test? It returns true.