[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20131030.173608.2156276556221568210.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:36:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: hannes@...essinduktion.org
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, fweimer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv4: introduce new IP_MTU_DISCOVER mode
IP_PMTUDISC_INTERFACE
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:07:25 +0100
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 01:04:25PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>> I really tried hard to find alternatives or even a way to enable
>> the protection automatically given that at least unbound does apply
>> IP_PMTUDISC_DONT to its sockets already. These are the reasons why I
>> came up with the new IP_PMTUDISC_INTERFACE value:
>
> Sorry to bother you but I would really love to hear your feedback on my
> reasoning so I can try to come up with a solution you would be happy with.
All I've read is that administrators cannot be relied upon to
configure their systems properly for the requirements they have.
And that is a non-argument for adding this new socket option as far as
I'm concerned.
"I strongly do not trust path MTU information" has a scope as small as
a route or an interface, it doesn't go down to the socket or
application level at all.
Please stop pretending that it does.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists