On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Steffen Klassert
<steffen.klass...@secunet.com> wrote:
> I thought you can just split the 32 bit mark into two 16 bit marks
> by setting an appropriate mask at the xfrm and the routing mark.
> But this has the drawback that the socket needs to know how possibly
> tunneled packets should be routed.

Right. And if those bits are already used for something else (e.g.,
Android uses something like 20 bits for marks) then that's not

Also - the other approach of using the SA mark for routing the
tunneled packet, that has backwards compatibility issues. If someone
is using mark-based routing, and has configured an SA with a mark,
then making the mark influence the routing lookup would change how
those tunnels are routed and possibly break them.

> So we transform the packet and may 'transform' the mark on the packet
> too. This could make sense, but we have to point out the differences
> between the xfrm_mark and the output_mark on the SA very explicit.

Ack. Where should this be pointed out? I've sent out a non-RFC version
to netdev, mostly unchanged but including a fair bit more rationale in
the commit message:


Or did you mean it should be be documented this in the ip-xfrm man page, or...?

Reply via email to