From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 341D4C47094 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:55:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.zx2c4.com (lists.zx2c4.com [165.227.139.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51F66610A1 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:55:10 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 51F66610A1 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=fiberdirekt.se Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Received: by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id cc9bff0c; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:55:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.layermesh.se (smtp.layermesh.se [151.236.207.67]) by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPS id 01c8309b (TLSv1.3:AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO) for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:55:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2a02:470:0:10:8d7:94e:af41:5f85] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:470:0:10:8d7:94e:af41:5f85]) (Authenticated sender: peter@fiberdirekt.se) by smtp.layermesh.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7BCD2206425; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:55:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fiberdirekt.se; s=dkim; t=1623066905; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=iaK/lR6UBpMCdACnQ95wx3WgAHqN5mqxSg0+gJ2wkY0=; b=fj6SeS84Q+XhqJogCl93AlJOoJI/vBA7xfZDro1xi4I8jViT0Ri6sCIpm593OeHeDP25Yj CUPADaXz2m/IJBrYF5hgSVuLfDiHE2SPOOfaJV+5VyMwXGB8QngQHCWCVnJVJmeHi72Gkx FdJLFVxWvDeAk8gWeqADw6ku/dXq8J8= Subject: Re: potentially disallowing IP fragmentation on wg packets, and handling routing loops better To: Roman Mamedov , "Jason A. Donenfeld" Cc: WireGuard mailing list , zrm , StarBrilliant , Baptiste Jonglez , Joe Holden , Nico Schottelius , Vasili Pupkin References: <20210607161313.764eb5d6@natsu> <20210607164617.6bf015d1@natsu> From: Peter Linder Message-ID: <43c72c2d-3649-b329-5ee5-78e891c69f04@fiberdirekt.se> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 13:55:01 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210607164617.6bf015d1@natsu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-BeenThere: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30rc1 Precedence: list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Sender: "WireGuard" This is indeed the case for me, spot on. On 2021-06-07 13:46, Roman Mamedov wrote: > So this same host that just generated the 1574-byte encapsulated VXLAN packet > with something it received via its eth0 port, now needs to send it further to > its WG peer(s). For this to succeed, the in-tunnel WG MTU needs to be 1574 or > more, not 1412 or 1420, as VXLAN itself can't be fragmented[1]; or even if it > could, that would mean a much worse overhead ratio than currently.