On 07/11/12 14:30, g...@freebsd.org wrote:
Howdy,
Does anyone know the reason for this particular check in
ip_output.c?
if (rte != NULL && (rte->rt_flags & (RTF_UP|RTF_HOST))) {
/*
* This case can happen if the user changed the MTU
* of an interface after enabling IP on it. Because
* most netifs don't keep track of routes pointing to
* them, there is no way for one to update all its
* routes when the MTU is changed.
*/
if (rte->rt_rmx.rmx_mtu > ifp->if_mtu)
rte->rt_rmx.rmx_mtu = ifp->if_mtu;
mtu = rte->rt_rmx.rmx_mtu;
} else {
mtu = ifp->if_mtu;
}
To my mind the > ought to be != so that any change, up or down, of the
interface MTU is eventually reflected in the route. Also, this code
does not check if it is both a HOST route and UP, but only if it is
one other the other, so don't be fooled by that, this check happens
for any route we have if it's up.
I believe rmx_mtu could be low due to some intermediate node between
this host and the final destination. An increase in the MTU of the
local interface should not increase the path MTU if the limit was due to
someone else along the route.
Regards,
Navdeep
My proposed change is this:
Index: ip_output.c
===================================================================
--- ip_output.c (revision 225561)
+++ ip_output.c (working copy)
@@ -320,7 +320,7 @@
* them, there is no way for one to update all its
* routes when the MTU is changed.
*/
- if (rte->rt_rmx.rmx_mtu > ifp->if_mtu)
+ if (rte->rt_rmx.rmx_mtu != ifp->if_mtu)
rte->rt_rmx.rmx_mtu = ifp->if_mtu;
mtu = rte->rt_rmx.rmx_mtu;
} else {
Please let me know what y'all think.
Best,
George
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
