> > Just to make it clear: Is this message an error, or a
> warning or just
> > for information?
> > Could you explain a bit please.
>
>
> Its a debugging message nowadays (NETDEBUG). I was mostly interested
> in this since I changed the IPsec MTU calculation in 2.6.22 and it
> might have been a
ICMP_DEST_UNREACH ||
icmp_hdr(skb)->code != ICMP_FRAG_NEEDED)
return;
x = xfrm_state_lookup((xfrm_address_t *)&iph->daddr, esph->spi,
IPPROTO_ESP, AF_INET);
if (!x)
return;
NETDEBUG(KERN_DEBUG "pmtu discovery on SA ESP/%08x/%08x\n",
ntohl(esph->s
cmp_hdr(skb)->code != ICMP_FRAG_NEEDED)
return;
x = xfrm_state_lookup((xfrm_address_t *)&iph->daddr, esph->spi,
IPPROTO_ESP, AF_INET);
if (!x)
return;
NETDEBUG(KERN_DEBUG "pmtu discovery on SA ESP/%08x/%08x\n",
ntohl(esph->spi), ntohl(iph->dad
return;
x = xfrm_state_lookup((xfrm_address_t *)&iph->daddr, esph->spi,
IPPROTO_ESP, AF_INET);
if (!x)
return;
NETDEBUG(KERN_DEBUG "pmtu discovery on SA ESP/%08x/%08x\n",
ntohl(esph->spi), ntohl(iph->daddr));
xfrm_state_put(x);
where could pm
Mika Penttilä wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>> Its a debugging message nowadays (NETDEBUG). I was mostly interested
>> in this since I changed the IPsec MTU calculation in 2.6.22 and it
>> might have been a bug.
>>
>>
>
> And we don't have pmtu discovery for esp yet, right?
We do. The be
Patrick McHardy wrote:
Beschorner Daniel wrote:
Beschorner Daniel wrote:
So its using 1492 now? Otherwise it would be expected since the
initial MTU calculation would be based on 1500.
I'm using 1500 again.
Just to make it clear: Is this message an error, or a warning or just
for in
Beschorner Daniel wrote:
>>Beschorner Daniel wrote:
>>
>>So its using 1492 now? Otherwise it would be expected since the
>>initial MTU calculation would be based on 1500.
>
>
> I'm using 1500 again.
>
> Just to make it clear: Is this message an error, or a warning or just
> for information?
> Co
> Beschorner Daniel wrote:
> >>>No more crashes with IPComp and smaller PMTUs.
> >>>But the "pmtu discovery on SA ESP/..." messages don't disappear.
> >>
> >>Thats probably a different issue. Please post the output of
> >>"i
Beschorner Daniel wrote:
>>>No more crashes with IPComp and smaller PMTUs.
>>>But the "pmtu discovery on SA ESP/..." messages don't disappear.
>>
>>Thats probably a different issue. Please post the output of
>>"ip -x xfrm state" (obfu
> > No more crashes with IPComp and smaller PMTUs.
> > But the "pmtu discovery on SA ESP/..." messages don't disappear.
>
> Thats probably a different issue. Please post the output of
> "ip -x xfrm state" (obfuscate keys if you care ..).
Linux (MTU
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Marco Berizzi wrote:
> > Patrick McHardy wrote:
> >
> >>We have some MTU opimiztations in 2.6.22-rc that might be related.
> >>Please check with tcpdump what exactly is happening and whether
> >>the 2.6.22-rc box is sending too large packets.
> >
> >
> > I have done a tcpd
Marco Berizzi wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>We have some MTU opimiztations in 2.6.22-rc that might be related.
>>Please check with tcpdump what exactly is happening and whether
>>the 2.6.22-rc box is sending too large packets.
>
>
> I have done a tcpdump capture on the external
> interface
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Marco Berizzi wrote:
> > Hello everybody.
> > I have just upgraded from 2.6.21.3 to
> > 2.6.22-rc4 and I get a ton of
> > pmtu discovery on sa esp/blablab/blabla
> > messages (this box is running openswan).
> > Is this an exp
Marco Berizzi wrote:
> Hello everybody.
> I have just upgraded from 2.6.21.3 to
> 2.6.22-rc4 and I get a ton of
> pmtu discovery on sa esp/blablab/blabla
> messages (this box is running openswan).
> Is this an expected behaviour?
We have some MTU opimiztations in 2.6.22-rc tha
Hello everybody.
I have just upgraded from 2.6.21.3 to
2.6.22-rc4 and I get a ton of
pmtu discovery on sa esp/blablab/blabla
messages (this box is running openswan).
Is this an expected behaviour?
TIA
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of
15 matches
Mail list logo
