[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