From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: aranea@aixah.de Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 7da6c3d4 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:00:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wp260.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp260.webpack.hosteurope.de [80.237.133.29]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id dea04a38 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:00:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:12:20 +0200 From: Luis Ressel To: Roman Mamedov Subject: Re: Mixed MTU hosts on a network Message-ID: <20180326211220.1c350824@vega.skynet.aixah.de> In-Reply-To: <20180316142547.2ecb70de@natsu> References: <20180316142547.2ecb70de@natsu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 14:25:47 +0500 Roman Mamedov wrote: > What helps, is only reducing MTU of the entire wg0 interface to 1412. > Then everything works fine. But it doesn't feel optimal to reduce MTU > of the entire network just because of 1 or 2 hosts. I would rather > use a couple of those mtu-override routes, if they worked. Unfortunately, lowering the MTU of the whole tunnel interface is the only reliable solution right now. Per-peer configurability of MTUs has been on project TODO for a while, so there will be a better solution some day. I even started to work on this a few months back, but got sidetracked. Cheers, Luis