[Olsr-dev] Problems with SmartGateway
Spencer Johnson
(spam-protected)
Fri Sep 30 01:14:31 CEST 2011
Just shake it a little ;):)
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 29, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Teco Boot <(spam-protected)> wrote:
> Op 29 sep 2011, om 14:17 heeft Markus Kittenberger het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Teco Boot <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>> Back to older kernel is no option for me, I need 3.0.0 for my gear.
>> it was meant for testing, and finding the smart gateway problem ,..
>>
>> I see a /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/rp_filter with default value 1.
>> might be a problem,.
>> what the value of
>> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/tun0/rp_filter
> (spam-protected):~# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/tun0/rp_filter
> 1
> But this is my OpenVPN tunnel !!
>
> Here is what is of interest:
> (spam-protected):~# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/tunl0/rp_filter
> 0
>
>> and how does 3.0 kernel combine this values ? (-;
> I don't think it differs from older kernels.
>
> I think the ../all/rp_filter enforce validation on all ifs.
>
>
> In src/linux/net.c, is_at_least_linuxkernel_2_6_31:
> 173 if (strncmp(uts.release, "2.6.",4) != 0) {
> 174 return false;
> 175 }
>
> I put something in front:
>
> if (strncmp(uts.release, "2", 1) >= 0) {
> return true;
> }
> if (strncmp(uts.release, "2.6.", 4) != 0) {
> return false;
> }
>
> I pushed into stable (with user name "right now"). Next time with correct name, I hope.
>
> There are some unexpected netlink error messages in syslog:
> On gateway server:
> Sep 29 19:00:11 AHR-175-173 olsrd[17142]: Writing '1' (was 1) to /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
> Sep 29 19:00:11 AHR-175-173 olsrd[17142]: Writing '0' (was 1) to /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/tunl0/rp_filter
> Sep 29 19:00:11 AHR-175-173 olsrd[17142]: Writing '0' (was 1) to /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/send_redirects
> Sep 29 19:00:11 AHR-175-173 olsrd[17142]: Writing '0' (was 0) to /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/rp_filter
> Sep 29 19:00:11 AHR-175-173 olsrd[17142]: Writing '0' (was 1) to /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/wlan0/send_redirects
> Sep 29 19:00:11 AHR-175-173 olsrd[17142]: Writing '0' (was 1) to /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/wlan0/rp_filter
> Sep 29 19:00:11 AHR-175-173 olsrd[17142]: Adding interface wlan0
> Sep 29 19:00:11 AHR-175-173 olsrd[17142]: Writing '0' (was 1) to /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth1.2580/send_redirects
> Sep 29 19:00:11 AHR-175-173 olsrd[17142]: Writing '0' (was 1) to /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth1.2580/rp_filter
> Sep 29 19:00:11 AHR-175-173 olsrd[17142]: Adding interface eth1.2580
> Sep 29 19:00:11 AHR-175-173 olsrd[17144]: Writing "0" to /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/bmf0/rp_filter
> Sep 29 19:00:11 AHR-175-173 olsrd[17144]: olsr.org - pre-0.6.2-git_-hash_c88f1d019c2e53ce1cb8270a8b9ef9de - successfully started
> Sep 29 19:01:31 AHR-175-173 olsrd[17144]: Received netlink error code File exists (-17)
> Sep 29 19:23:59 AHR-175-173 olsrd[17144]: Received netlink error code File exists (-17)
> Not sure it has to do with SmartGateway
>
> Teco
>
>
>>
>> We better turn this off.
>> It is automatically turned off if kernel >= 2.6.31.
>> Update code for >= 3.0.0 also?
>> maybe we need another code, as 3.0 should be evaluate as bigger than 2.6.31 *G
>>
>> Now I have smart gateway running. Great!!
>> fine!
>>
>> I'll test a bit more.
>>
>> Teco
>>
>>
>> Op 25 sep 2011, om 17:00 heeft Markus Kittenberger het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>> try to use "older" kernel versions (or best an openwrt router with an old openwrt release, and without any firewall)) on the gateway side,
>>>
>>> cause while on client side we defenitely broke smartgateway with using the onlink flag for routes, some months ago, but on server side, i really doubt that we anyhow managed to break it recently (and it worked on the systems we tested it #1
>>>
>>> Markus
>>>
>>> #1 but i can`t recall completely which ones this where, but it included for sure openwrt whiterussian and kamikaze
>>>
>>> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Teco Boot <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> I didn't see the error messages anymore and route is added. Packets flow into tunnel, but receiving gateway node doesn't forward. I'll try to find out why.
>>> I am couple of weeks offline, so keep patience.
>>>
>>> Teco
>>>
>>>
>>> Op 20 sep 2011, om 23:03 heeft Markus Kittenberger het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>> i just pushed a patch to stable that should fix this bug,..
>>>>
>>>> Markus
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Teco Boot <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>>>> I have problems with SmartGateway. Add route to tunnel is rejected.
>>>>
>>>> I use dyn_gw also. But this node has no default route. So I think it is not dyn_gw.
>>>>
>>>> If selected GW is a 1-hop away destination, is traffic sent through tunnel?
>>>> Or directly via if wan0? Looks smart. Or is this routing entry unexpected?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Syslog:
>>>> =======
>>>> Aug 26 13:15:25 AHR-175-169 olsrd[2199]: Received netlink error code Invalid argument (-22)
>>>> Aug 26 13:15:26 AHR-175-169 olsrd[2199]: . error: add route to 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 via 0.0.0.0 dev void onlink (Resource temporarily unavailable 11)
>>>> Aug 26 13:15:26 AHR-175-169 olsrd[2199]: . error while setting inetgw tunnel route to 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 for if 19
>>>> Aug 26 13:15:26 AHR-175-169 olsrd[2199]: Received netlink error code Invalid argument (-22)
>>>> Aug 26 13:15:26 AHR-175-169 olsrd[2199]: . error: add route to 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 via 0.0.0.0 dev void onlink (Resource temporarily unavailable 11)
>>>> Aug 26 13:15:26 AHR-175-169 olsrd[2199]: . error while setting inetgw tunnel route to 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 for if 19
>>>> Aug 26 13:15:26 AHR-175-169 olsrd[2199]: Received netlink error code File exists (-17)
>>>>
>>>> GW info:
>>>> ========
>>>> Table: Gateways
>>>> Status Gateway IP ETX Hopcnt Uplink Downlnk IPv4 IPv6 Prefix
>>>> s- 172.31.175.166 1.000 1 120 1000 ipv4(n) - -
>>>> u- 172.31.175.173 1.000 1 120 1000 ipv4(n) - -
>>>>
>>>> Tunnel:
>>>> =======
>>>> tnl_a6af1fac Link encap:IPIP Tunnel HWaddr
>>>> inet addr:172.31.175.169 P-t-P:172.31.175.169 Mask:255.255.255.255
>>>> UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MTU:1480 Metric:1
>>>> RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>>>> TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>>>> collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
>>>> RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:0 (0.0 B)
>>>>
>>>> Default route:
>>>> ==============
>>>> default via 172.31.175.166 dev wlan0 table 223 metric 4 onlink
>>>>
>>>> Config:
>>>> =======
>>>> SmartGateway yes
>>>> LoadPlugin "olsrd_dyn_gw.so.0.5"
>>>> {
>>>> PlParam "HNA" "0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0"
>>>> PlParam "HNA" "0.0.0.0 128.0.0.0"
>>>> PlParam "HNA" "128.0.0.0 128.0.0.0"
>>>> PlParam "HNA" "0.0.0.0 192.0.0.0"
>>>> PlParam "HNA" "64.0.0.0 192.0.0.0"
>>>> PlParam "HNA" "128.0.0.0 192.0.0.0"
>>>> PlParam "HNA" "192.0.0.0 192.0.0.0"
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Result when SmartGateway should use tunnel.
>>>> I moved router #169 from #166 towards #173.
>>>> Routing switched to #173, including traffic
>>>> to Internet.
>>>> ===========================================
>>>> Every 2.0s: olsr -l ; olsr -g ; echo ; ip route show table all | grep "default via" ; echo ; traceroute -n 8.8.8.8 Fri Aug 26 13:35:44 2011
>>>>
>>>> Table: Links
>>>> Local IP Remote IP Hyst. LQ NLQ Cost
>>>> 172.31.175.169 172.31.175.166 0.00 1.000 0.607 1.645
>>>> 172.31.175.169 172.31.175.173 0.00 1.000 1.000 1.000
>>>>
>>>> Table: Gateways
>>>> Status Gateway IP ETX Hopcnt Uplink Downlnk IPv4 IPv6 Prefix
>>>> s- 172.31.175.166 1.645 1 120 1000 ipv4(n) - -
>>>> u- 172.31.175.173 1.000 1 120 1000 ipv4(n) - -
>>>>
>>>> default via 172.31.175.173 dev wlan0 table 223 metric 4 onlink
>>>>
>>>> traceroute to 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
>>>> 1 172.31.175.173 0.618 ms 0.492 ms 0.671 ms
>>>> 2 * * *
>>>> 3 213.51.132.193 26.720 ms 27.714 ms 44.023 ms
>>>> 4 213.51.157.42 45.014 ms 67.329 ms 68.274 ms
>>>> 5 213.51.158.146 69.222 ms 91.281 ms 92.216 ms
>>>> 6 72.14.219.220 117.372 ms 117.239 ms 118.354 ms
>>>> 7 209.85.254.95 119.239 ms 209.85.254.90 96.420 ms 96.729 ms
>>>> 8 209.85.255.60 81.467 ms 81.439 ms 60.172 ms
>>>> 9 216.239.49.38 76.460 ms 75.945 ms 63.348 ms
>>>> 10 209.85.255.126 63.488 ms 43.024 ms 209.85.255.130 62.719 ms
>>>> 11 8.8.8.8 46.431 ms 59.123 ms 60.449 ms
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Teco
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Olsr-dev mailing list
>>>> (spam-protected)
>>>> https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Olsr-dev mailing list
> (spam-protected)
> https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.olsr.org/pipermail/olsr-dev/attachments/20110929/bcbda9bd/attachment.html>
More information about the Olsr-dev
mailing list