From: Simon Arlott <simon@fire.lp0.eu>
To: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 8754] New: Kernel addrconf modifies MTU of non-kernel routes
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:32:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46AF9C63.5090303@simon.arlott.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4699E915.5040904@simon.arlott.org.uk>
On 15/07/07 10:29, Simon Arlott wrote:
> On 14/07/07 23:09, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:54:32 -0700 (PDT) bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:
>>> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8754
>>>
>>> I have an MTU of 16110 set on eth0 on a network where the MTU is 1500 as set by
>>> RAs. One of the other hosts on the network has an MRU/MTU of 7200 so I have a
>>> specific route to it with this MTU.
>>>
>>> If I add the route early (i.e. on startup) before address autoconfiguration
>>> takes place, when the first RA is received the kernel changes the MTU on my
>>> route - this should not happen.
>
> This also happens whenever I change the MTU on eth0 - it will alter the
> MTU on routes *I* have added too. While this is valid behaviour for a
> new MTU that is too low for the route it is not for an MTU above the route.
>
> Changing the MTU also allows the "next RA with MTU set changes
> non-kernel routes too" problem to occur again.
The problem seems to be that because the IPv6 code maintains its own MTU for
each interface, which is set from RAs (router advertisements) and when the
interface MTU is set (it's also improperly modifiable via sysctl when it
shouldn't be, but that's another bug), it uses that to limit the MTU of every
route.
I propose that it should use the real interface MTU as the limit for non-kernel
routes and the RA MTU for kernel routes.
Since IPv6 routes (appear to) always have an MTU (IPv4 routes don't and hence
inherit from the interface) this would have the side effect that a user-added
route's automatically set MTU would not be lowered by the RA MTU.
New user IPv6 routes without an explicit MTU should not have one set and use
the RA MTU automatically.
Is this ok? I'll send a patch to do this some time this week when I get around
to it.
--
Simon Arlott
prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-31 20:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <bug-8754-10286@http.bugzilla.kernel.org/>
2007-07-14 22:09 ` [Bugme-new] [Bug 8754] New: Kernel addrconf modifies MTU of non-kernel routes Andrew Morton
2007-07-15 9:29 ` Simon Arlott
2007-07-31 20:32 ` Simon Arlott [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=46AF9C63.5090303@simon.arlott.org.uk \
--to=simon@fire.lp0.eu \
--cc=bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).