1
23.7 Production Series / Connectivity audit using weird packet sizes ...
« on: November 23, 2023, 05:37:20 pm »
IPv4:
OK, working - but why oversized packets which will have to be fragmented?
And IPv6:
No fragmentation in IPv6, so of course:
This is a 23.7.10 lab installation connected to my LAN as uplink ("block private networks" disabled) and with the regular interface MTU of 1500 bytes. The real Internet firewall has got an MTU of 1492 bytes on WAN (PPPoE).
What's the reasoning behind sending large packets instead of just regular ICMP echo? And is there possibly a bug in the size calculation?
Kind regards,
Patrick
Code: [Select]
Currently running OPNsense 23.7.9 at Thu Nov 23 17:29:33 CET 2023
Checking connectivity for host: pkg.opnsense.org -> 89.149.222.99
PING 89.149.222.99 (89.149.222.99): 1500 data bytes
1508 bytes from 89.149.222.99: icmp_seq=0 ttl=55 time=32.805 ms
1508 bytes from 89.149.222.99: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=32.682 ms
1508 bytes from 89.149.222.99: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=32.782 ms
1508 bytes from 89.149.222.99: icmp_seq=3 ttl=55 time=32.610 ms
--- 89.149.222.99 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
OK, working - but why oversized packets which will have to be fragmented?
And IPv6:
Code: [Select]
Checking connectivity for host: pkg.opnsense.org -> 2001:1af8:5300:a010:1::1
PING6(1548=40+8+1500 bytes) 2003:a:d59:3800:3eec:efff:fe00:5433 --> 2001:1af8:5300:a010:1::1
--- 2001:1af8:5300:a010:1::1 ping6 statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss
No fragmentation in IPv6, so of course:
Code: [Select]
17:26:53.546530 IP6 opnsense.ettlingen.hausen.com > 2003:a:d59:3800:3eec:efff:fe00:5433: ICMP6, packet too big, mtu 1492, length 1240
This is a 23.7.10 lab installation connected to my LAN as uplink ("block private networks" disabled) and with the regular interface MTU of 1500 bytes. The real Internet firewall has got an MTU of 1492 bytes on WAN (PPPoE).
What's the reasoning behind sending large packets instead of just regular ICMP echo? And is there possibly a bug in the size calculation?
Kind regards,
Patrick