[leaf-user] PPPoE, MTU, IPSEC and SNAT woes

2003-08-07 Thread Lars Karlslund
Hello everyone, Troubles again with ... let me explain the setup first: LEAF/Bering box on PPPoE line at remote office. ppp0 MTU is 1492 - have tried overriding in dsl-provider, but to no avail (doesn't do anything?). ClampMSS is enabled in Shorewall. Mandrake/Shorewall on regular Ethernet line

RE: [leaf-user] PPPoE, MTU, IPSEC and SNAT woes

2003-08-08 Thread Lars Karlslund
> > sizes up to 1492 (ping -s 1464 x.x.x.x), but not with packet sizes > > over. I can't figure out why, but I suspect that ping sets the DF > > flag. > Ping does set the DF flag bit, so you're hitting the MTU > limit of your PPPoE link. Okay - so why does ping do that? Is there a reason for th

Re: [leaf-user] PPPoE, MTU, IPSEC and SNAT woes

2003-08-14 Thread Charles Steinkuehler
Lars Karlslund wrote: Hello everyone, Troubles again with ... let me explain the setup first: LEAF/Bering box on PPPoE line at remote office. ppp0 MTU is 1492 - have tried overriding in dsl-provider, but to no avail (doesn't do anything?). ClampMSS is enabled in Shorewall. Mandrake/Shorewall on

Re: [leaf-user] PPPoE, MTU, IPSEC and SNAT woes

2003-08-14 Thread Charles Steinkuehler
Lars Karlslund wrote: > sizes up to 1492 (ping -s 1464 x.x.x.x), but not with packet sizes > over. I can't figure out why, but I suspect that ping sets the DF > flag. Ping does set the DF flag bit, so you're hitting the MTU limit of your PPPoE link. Okay - so why does ping do that? Is there a re