On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:42:51 +1000 Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 12:47:03PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:55:57 +1000 > > Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote: > > > > > There should be a knob that controls whether the TTL is copied across. > > > > There is an RFC that talks about TTL et al. propagation in IP tunnels. > > (digging...) Yes, it's RFC2983. There it is specified the Uniform and > > Pipe model of tunneling, we only support one of those two. > > I just read it and I can't find any references to TTL. It seems to > be only talking about the TOS field. Sorry my bad. > In any case, RFC2401 section 5.1.2 requires that the TTL in the outer > header be independent of that in the inner header. So we may even > need to change the default setting to comply. The IPIP tunnel driver allows the user to specify a specific TTL, and if none specified we use the inner IPH TTL. Perhaps instead, the backup logic should use the route's TTL and that logic copied over to xfrm4_tunnel.c What do you think? - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
