Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 23:04:09 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 242744] IPSec in transport mode between FreeBSD hosts blackholes TCP traffic Message-ID: <bug-242744-7501-K0vDhM100a@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-242744-7501@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-242744-7501@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D242744 --- Comment #18 from dewayne@heuristicsystems.com.au --- (In reply to Eugene Grosbein from comment #16) I thought that there was a convention regarding sysctl naming format. Shou= ld=20 net.inet.ipsec.trans.cleardf be net.inet.ipsec.trans_cleardf, or are there plans for the trans sub-branch? As it might help people coming into ipsec in the future. Is it possible to = have a crisp (clear) description that distinguishes=20 net.inet.ipsec.trans.cleardf: "Clear do not fragment bit for outgoing trans= port mode packets." and net.inet.ipsec.dfbit=3DDo not fragment bit on encap. Suggestion net.inet.ipsec.dfbit=3D"Do not fragment bit on tunnel encap." ^ (I'd personally prefer net.inet.ipsec.tunnel_cleardf, and obsolete, in the future, ipsec.dfbit as it doesn't do as currently stated. Perhaps worth consideration?) --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-242744-7501-K0vDhM100a>