David Gwynne <da...@gwynne.id.au> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 06:13:15AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > Luca Di Gregorio <luc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I'm not sure about this, but I think that public cloud datacenters filter > > > out > > > (or do something with) udp traffic to standard udp vxlan port. > > > > But that would not be a reason for allowing selection of the pre-standard > > port number. > > > > Rather, it would be a reason for provididing *any non-standard port number* > > > > Which is perhaps what the code does. But noone would actually want this. > > VXLAN on port 54? 80? Noone would want this. > > > > And if they filter it, then put it inside an underlay. The standard says > > nothing about permitting vxlan on any old random stupid port number. > > from a quick look around it appears that at least linux, juniper and > arista allow for the configuration of a non-standard port for vxlan. > linux documentation even says it defaults to the pre-iana assigned port > because their driver pre dates the standard, which is peak linux. > > independent of whether our vxlan(4) driver should support it or not, > ifconfig should be fixed to handle setting up sockaddrs for these > ioctls better anyway.
OK, I am convinced.
