From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: IPsec PMTUD problem Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:16:53 +0200 Message-ID: <4614E8B5.60009@trash.net> References: <46110ED1.9070209@trash.net> <20070403095510.GA7754@gondor.apana.org.au> <46128187.4090601@trash.net> <20070405120425.GC10972@gondor.apana.org.au> <4614E6F0.10905@trash.net> <20070405121256.GD10972@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linux Netdev List To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:49790 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2992669AbXDEMQz (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Apr 2007 08:16:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070405121256.GD10972@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Herbert Xu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 02:09:20PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >>>One possible solution is to not send MTU errors to ourselves since >>>we it wouldn't give us any new information. We'd need to audit the >>>users of icmp_send to make sure that there isn't a legitimate case >>>where we'd want to do that. >> >>One such case is delivery of errors to sockets. We'd need to make >>sure the errors are delivered some other way. > > > Alternatively we can still send the ICMP error but avoid a PMTU > update if we received it from ourselves. That sounds easier. I'm currently working in that area anyway, I'll give it a try.