On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Steffen Klassert <steffen.klass...@secunet.com> wrote: > I thought you can just split the 32 bit mark into two 16 bit marks > by setting an appropriate mask at the xfrm and the routing mark. > But this has the drawback that the socket needs to know how possibly > tunneled packets should be routed.
Right. And if those bits are already used for something else (e.g., Android uses something like 20 bits for marks) then that's not possible. Also - the other approach of using the SA mark for routing the tunneled packet, that has backwards compatibility issues. If someone is using mark-based routing, and has configured an SA with a mark, then making the mark influence the routing lookup would change how those tunnels are routed and possibly break them. > So we transform the packet and may 'transform' the mark on the packet > too. This could make sense, but we have to point out the differences > between the xfrm_mark and the output_mark on the SA very explicit. Ack. Where should this be pointed out? I've sent out a non-RFC version to netdev, mostly unchanged but including a fair bit more rationale in the commit message: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/799891/ Or did you mean it should be be documented this in the ip-xfrm man page, or...?
