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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 477DEC47094 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:27:31 +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 0DC07610A8 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:27:24 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0DC07610A8 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zx2c4.com 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 b3fa4aa2; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:27:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.zx2c4.com (mail.zx2c4.com [104.131.123.232]) by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPS id ba26e3f7 (TLSv1.3:AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO) for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:27:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zx2c4.com; s=20210105; t=1623065232; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Yswz1C4AzBHZFjz/58bVLrJMcWtRPt6sZj86zZIgk1Q=; b=F7w8Ffra2/Fen7HS28csC68IgafEFrmLFo8sGN9BiPNHu8R8USi6PTABc0yX9x1y9rxDmc I7AINdgStkttWzhErcpk/AxyAnsl2v3FpTS3tQ/csEgteOuN5ZSGrzWIgFPsFsx5ig1ANq OddMCPWX4W0HodU0XV9KumTn0IwAShk= Received: by mail.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPSA id a9097ee9 (TLSv1.3:AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO); Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:27:12 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 13:27:10 +0200 From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" To: Roman Mamedov Cc: WireGuard mailing list , zrm , StarBrilliant , Baptiste Jonglez , Joe Holden , Nico Schottelius , Vasili Pupkin , peter@fiberdirekt.se Subject: Re: potentially disallowing IP fragmentation on wg packets, and handling routing loops better Message-ID: References: <20210607161313.764eb5d6@natsu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210607161313.764eb5d6@natsu> 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" Hi Roman, On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 1:13 PM Roman Mamedov wrote: > In the L2 tunneling scenario the large VXLAN packets are generated locally, as > it will be common for the same host (aka "the router") to be both a WG peer > and a VXLAN VTEP, so it is going to be affected. Can you walk me through your use case a bit more, so I can wrap my mind around the requirements? ingress --plain--> wireguard --wireguard[plain]--> vxlan --vxlan[wireguard[plain]]--> egress So my question is, why can't you set wireguard's MTU to 80 bytes less than vxlan's MTU? What's preventing that or making it infeasible? Jason