From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: Leon Schuermann <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Introduce per-peer MTU setting Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 22:34:35 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org writes: > From: Leon Schuermann <email@example.com> > > This patch series is an attempt to integrate a per-peer MTU setting > into WireGuard. With matching changes to the wireguard-tools, > individual MTU values can be set and retrieved for each registered > peer. > > While Linux supports setting an MTU metric for specific FIB route > entries [which I've only found out after implementing this :)], and > thus allows to lower the MTU for individual peers, this appears to > disable regular path MTU discovery (PMTUD) entirely on the > route. While regular PMTUD does not work over the tunnel link, it > should still be usable on the rest of the route. I'm not sure I understand the use case? Either PMTUD works through the tunnel and you can just let that do its job, or it doesn't and you have to do out-of-band discovery anyway in which case you can just use the FIB route MTU? Or what do you mean by "usable on the rest of the route"? > Furthermore, with the goal of eventually introducing an in-band > per-peer PMTUD mechanism, keeping an internal per-peer MTU value does > not require modifying the FIB and thus potentially interfere with > userspace. What "in-band per-peer PMTUD mechanism"? And why does it need this? -Toke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-04 21:34 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-12-28 23:45 leon 2021-12-28 23:45 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] netdevice: add ndo_lookup_mtu for dynamically determining MTU leon 2021-12-28 23:45 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] net/ipv4: respect MTU determined by `ndo_lookup_mtu` leon 2021-12-28 23:45 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] net/ipv6: " leon 2021-12-28 23:45 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] net/wireguard: add per-peer MTU setting leon 2022-01-04 21:34 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message] 2022-01-07 22:13 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] Introduce " Leon Schuermann
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 \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Introduce per-peer MTU setting' \ /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
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).