netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IPsec and Path MTU

To: Michael Richardson <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: IPsec and Path MTU
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 12:50:53 -0700
Cc: herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <7882.1087616014@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
References: <20040615124334.GA25164@gondor.apana.org.au> <20040616195653.GC29781@ms2.inr.ac.ru> <20040616231317.GA5742@gondor.apana.org.au> <20040617190158.GA10925@ms2.inr.ac.ru> <20040617213832.GC14089@gondor.apana.org.au> <20040617152921.730892c7.davem@redhat.com> <20040617231241.GB14739@gondor.apana.org.au> <20040617161403.2d0ee598.davem@redhat.com> <7882.1087616014@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 23:33:34 -0400
Michael Richardson <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> 
> >>>>> "David" == David S Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>     >> In my case, the ICMP message is not coming from the remote IPsec
>     >> gateway or a router in front of it.  It's coming from a host
>     >> behind it.  So the original IP header is in the ICMP message, in
>     >> the clear.
> 
>     David> Remote gateway is supposed to encapsulate the ICMP message
>     David> and send it back to the other gateway isn't it?
> 
> Maybe. Maybe not.
> The policy may be per-port, or based upon some other more complicated
> policy. 

The policy should therefore match the quoted packet in the ICMP message.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>