On 27/09/2016 10:40 PM, Tuomo Soini wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:58:08 +1300
Reuben Farrelly <reuben-libres...@reub.net> wrote:
mtu=1438
That one forces routing too.
Thanks Tuomo. That looks much better now. Is the MTU automatically
calculated if it is not specified?
Paul - perhaps it could be noted on the wiki page that these options are
not compatible with vti-routing=no . It doesn't seem to be obvious that
this is the case.
The one outstanding problem though is if we were to use (the default)
vti-routing=yes, would we not want to insert a host route for the remote
host/endpoint so that the data towards it leaves via the unencrypted
interface? Without it it appears we end up with a recursive routing
situation where the traffic to reach the remote public device is via the
tunnel itself. Currently that route is not added and my observations a
few days ago is that this behaviour breaks the tunnel once it has almost
come up. I was observing IKEv2 almost not quite going to completion on
the client side and a loss of connectivity to the remote the moment
after these routes were installed.
Reuben
_______________________________________________
Swan mailing list
Swan@lists.libreswan.org
https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan
