Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2022 08:43:54 -0600 From: freebsd-net@brettglass.com To: "Patrick M. Hausen" <hausen@punkt.de>, freebsd-net@brettglass.com Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Wireguard, MTUs, and jumbo packets Message-ID: <202204051443.IAA22257@mail.lariat.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Interesting. That 60 byte overhead (which I understand is intended to make the protocol connectionless) is concerning, because to send a 1500 byte packet one needs to have enabled jumbo packets along the entire path. Otherwise, there will be a lot of fragmentation... which in turn will create yet more overhead. It also means that - at the other end of the packet size range - protocols that send many small packets (e.g. VOIP) could have tremendous overhead - 100% or more. Even TCP ACKs become substantial. This is a big disadvantage compared to protocols such as L2TP and PPTP. Is there any provision in Wireguard for packet aggregation? If not, there likely should be. --Brett Glass At 01:27 AM 4/4/2022, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: >Hi all, >as far as I know WireGuard does not care about interface or PMTU >nor perform PMTUd. You can set the WG interface MTU in the configuration, e.g. > > [Interface] > PrivateKey = ************** > Address = [...] > DNS = [...] > MTU = 1280 > >Wether your path will be capable of transporting packets with a tunnel MTU >of 1500 is left for you to take care of - outside of WG. > >WireGuard overhead is 60 bytes for IPv4 transport and 80 bytes for IPv6.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202204051443.IAA22257>