[Olsr-users] [Olsr-dev] olsrd 0.6.6.1 (and earlier) ipv6 problems
Russell Senior
(spam-protected)
Fri Mar 28 13:00:43 CET 2014
I am glad I didn't try to make a smaller test case ;-)
I am not sure what the justification for the 1280 MTU is, it wasn't a
choice I made. Even if we bump that up a bit, we're going to run into 1500
eventually. Is it possible to send the messages in fragments?
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Henning Rogge <(spam-protected)> wrote:
> Hello:
> 40 bytes (IP header) + 8 bytes (UDP)
> + 4 bytes (OLSR packet header)
> + 4 bytes (OLSR message header) + 60*20 bytes (20 bytes per neighbor)
> + 4-16 bytes (up to 4 groups of neighbors)
> = 1260 - 1272 bytes
>
> a few additional bytes for IP header options and we break the limit.
>
> TC is a little bit smaller by a constant value, but still 20 bytes per
> neighbor.
>
> HNA is no problem (just 16 bytes per HNA, no neighbors)
>
>
> I think we found our potential problem.
>
> Henning Rogge
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Russell Senior
> <(spam-protected)> wrote:
> > When the central node has 59 neighbors, it works. When it has 60
> neighbors,
> > it doesn't. We actually have 67 that we'd like to work today, with more
> new
> > nodes in the near future.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Henning Rogge <(spam-protected)> wrote:
> >>
> >> How many leaf nodes do you have?
> >>
> >> Number of routes is not that important.
> >>
> >> Henning Rogge
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Russell Senior
> >> <(spam-protected)> wrote:
> >> > The MTU on the OpenVPN tunnel is 1280. That explanation does sound
> >> > quite
> >> > plausible.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Henning Rogge <(spam-protected)>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> It was worth the idea, it could have been a race condition between
> the
> >> >> message flooding and the OpenVPN multicast handling.
> >> >>
> >> >> I also think that "message fragmentation" is an issue here...
> >> >>
> >> >> 180 routes means that neither your Hello nor your TC does fit in a
> >> >> single UDP packet... which means the TCs/Hellos have to be fragmented
> >> >> by Olsrd, which is a codepath that is not well tested because it
> >> >> normally is not necessary.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thats mosts likely the reason why IPv4 is working, the messages do
> not
> >> >> become fragmented.
> >> >>
> >> >> Henning Rogge
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Russell Senior
> >> >> <(spam-protected)> wrote:
> >> >> > Clarification:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Mode "ether" does not explain the route collapse with too many
> nodes
> >> >> > participating.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Mode "ether" does seem to explain the lack of individual routes on
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > "leaf" nodes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Russell Senior
> >> >> > <(spam-protected)>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It could be, but it isn't ;-)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Even with Mode "ether" commented out, I'm still seeing the same
> >> >> >> route
> >> >> >> collapse behavior when too many devices are on.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Commenting it out did improve the route propagation to the "leaf"
> >> >> >> nodes
> >> >> >> though.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Henning Rogge <(spam-protected)>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Hi,
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> mode "ether" should only be used by a group of OLSRd that run on
> >> >> >>> the
> >> >> >>> same ethernet switch... which means everyone can see everyone
> else.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> It suppress some forwarding of incoming OLSR messages because it
> >> >> >>> assumes that everyone on this interface has already seen the
> >> >> >>> message
> >> >> >>> anyways.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> If the "hub" had "mode ether" activated it could be a good
> >> >> >>> explanation
> >> >> >>> what happened.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Henning
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Russell Senior
> >> >> >>> <(spam-protected)> wrote:
> >> >> >>> > I should have done this earlier, but here are my olsrd.conf
> >> >> >>> > files.
> >> >> >>> > On
> >> >> >>> > the
> >> >> >>> > server:
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > ===================================================
> >> >> >>> > IpVersion 6
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > #Hna4
> >> >> >>> > #{
> >> >> >>> > #}
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Hna6
> >> >> >>> > {
> >> >> >>> > 0:: 0
> >> >> >>> > }
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > LinkQualityFishEye 0
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > LoadPlugin "olsrd_txtinfo.so.0.1"
> >> >> >>> > {
> >> >> >>> > PlParam "port" "7862"
> >> >> >>> > }
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > #############################################
> >> >> >>> > ### OLSRD default interface configuration ###
> >> >> >>> > #############################################
> >> >> >>> > # the default interface section can have the same values as the
> >> >> >>> > following
> >> >> >>> > # interface configuration. It will allow you so set common
> >> >> >>> > options
> >> >> >>> > for
> >> >> >>> > all
> >> >> >>> > # interfaces.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > InterfaceDefaults {
> >> >> >>> > # Ip4Broadcast 255.255.255.255
> >> >> >>> > }
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Interface "ptp" "ptp-udp" "vpn" "iris"
> >> >> >>> > {
> >> >> >>> > # Mode "ether"
> >> >> >>> > }
> >> >> >>> > =====================================================
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > I am pretty sure that Hna4 { } part had been there uncommented
> >> >> >>> > for a
> >> >> >>> > while.
> >> >> >>> > The Mode "ether" was uncommented too. When I commented them
> out,
> >> >> >>> > as
> >> >> >>> > above,
> >> >> >>> > and restart I see the individual routes on the client, as you
> >> >> >>> > would
> >> >> >>> > expect.
> >> >> >>> > I had noticed the "route aggregation" and been a little
> >> >> >>> > surprised,
> >> >> >>> > but
> >> >> >>> > having just moved to a newer version, I wasn't too suspicious.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > On the clients:
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > =====================================================
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > IpVersion 6
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > LinkQualityFishEye 0
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Hna6
> >> >> >>> > {
> >> >> >>> > 2001:470:e962:xxyy:: 64
> >> >> >>> > }
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > LoadPlugin "olsrd_txtinfo.so.0.1"
> >> >> >>> > {
> >> >> >>> > PlParam "port" "7862"
> >> >> >>> > }
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Interface "br-pub" "ptp"
> >> >> >>> > {
> >> >> >>> > }
> >> >> >>> > =====================================================
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > When it's working, I see 177 olsrd routes (the 180 figure
> >> >> >>> > included
> >> >> >>> > some
> >> >> >>> > header/footer lines, apparently) on the server and 176 on the
> >> >> >>> > client.
> >> >> >>> > But
> >> >> >>> > if I add another node, the routes all collapse still. It is
> >> >> >>> > confusing
> >> >> >>> > though. Sometimes, I only see two routes, as below, apparently
> >> >> >>> > when
> >> >> >>> > Mode
> >> >> >>> > "ether" is in force. It's confusing because sometimes I was
> >> >> >>> > seeing
> >> >> >>> > the
> >> >> >>> > more
> >> >> >>> > complete client routing table even with Mode "ether".
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Table: Routes
> >> >> >>> > Destination Gateway IP Metric ETX Interface
> >> >> >>> > ::/0 2001:470:e962::407 1 1.000 ptp
> >> >> >>> > 2001:470:e962::407/128 2001:470:e962::407 1 1.000
> >> >> >>> > ptp
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > I am turning Mode "ether" off again, and I seem to get a
> complete
> >> >> >>> > set
> >> >> >>> > of
> >> >> >>> > routes (one less than the server) on the clients.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Again, though, if I add one more node, the routes on both the
> >> >> >>> > server
> >> >> >>> > and
> >> >> >>> > clients collapse. The clients go to zero. The server has
> routes
> >> >> >>> > to
> >> >> >>> > one or
> >> >> >>> > sometimes two clients, which vary a little bit.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Henning Rogge <
> (spam-protected)>
> >> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> Each leaf should have a /128 route for each other leaf...
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> Olsrd does NOT do any route aggregation.
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> Can you show me a routing table of a leaf and the txtinfo
> output
> >> >> >>> >> when
> >> >> >>> >> everything is fine?
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> Henning
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Russell Senior
> >> >> >>> >> <(spam-protected)> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> > FWIW, the ipv6 routing tables on the "leaf" nodes are quite
> >> >> >>> >> > short,
> >> >> >>> >> > with
> >> >> >>> >> > mostly just a default route pointing at the central server,
> >> >> >>> >> > when
> >> >> >>> >> > olsrd
> >> >> >>> >> > is
> >> >> >>> >> > working. When the central server has the route collapse,
> the
> >> >> >>> >> > default
> >> >> >>> >> > route
> >> >> >>> >> > on the "leaf" nodes disappears.
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > I am thinking about memory exhaustion, maybe something his
> >> >> >>> >> > helpfully
> >> >> >>> >> > killing
> >> >> >>> >> > it off when the size becomes "too large" ... /me goes to
> look
> >> >> >>> >> > for
> >> >> >>> >> > evidence
> >> >> >>> >> > of that.
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:03 AM, Russell Senior
> >> >> >>> >> > <(spam-protected)>
> >> >> >>> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> The are single hop from the central server, which is the
> >> >> >>> >> >> table
> >> >> >>> >> >> I've
> >> >> >>> >> >> been
> >> >> >>> >> >> posting.
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Henning Rogge
> >> >> >>> >> >> <(spam-protected)>
> >> >> >>> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> What?
> >> >> >>> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> but your routing tables only contains "ETX 1.0" paths...
> >> >> >>> >> >>> which
> >> >> >>> >> >>> means
> >> >> >>> >> >>> they are single hop!
> >> >> >>> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> Henning
> >> >> >>> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Russell Senior
> >> >> >>> >> >>> <(spam-protected)> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > Without the ipv6 olsrd, the nodes can't route to each
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > other,
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > it
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > seems.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > I
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > picked two I had turned off, and tried ping6'ing between
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > them
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > and
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > got
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > 100%
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > packet loss.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 2:54 AM, Henning Rogge
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > <(spam-protected)>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> Hi,
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> as far as I can see each "leaf" node can see each other
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> leaf
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> node
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> over
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> the OpenVPN, right?
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> So you are only using Olsrd to distribute HNAs?
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> Henning Rogge
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Russell Senior
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> <(spam-protected)> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > The central server, ::407, is running OpenVPN in
> server
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > mode.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > The
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > "leaf"
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > nodes all connect to it via OpenVPN client mode with
> a
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > tap
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > interface.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > We
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > statically provision the IPv6 addresses on the vpn.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > And yes, the OpenVPN links are still active. We are
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > running
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > an
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > IPv4
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > instance of olsrd (same version) in parallel and
> those
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > routes
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > (to
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > the
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > very
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > same devices) are not affected.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > We see the problem when particular (though varying)
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > nodes
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > olsrd
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > ipv6
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > instances are started/stopped. Sometimes the nodes
> are
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > running
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > 0.6.6.1,
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > and
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > sometimes 0.6.4. It doesn't seem to be specific.
> The
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > central
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > server is
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > running 0.6.6.1 now, but we saw the same thing
> earlier
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > (which
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > is
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > why
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > I
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > upgraded) on 0.6.4.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > One other potential clue (it doesn't make very much
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > sense,
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > because I
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > know
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > there are much bigger networks than ours), I've never
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > seen
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > more
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > than
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > 186
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > ipv6 routes on ::407. We seem to see the problem
> when
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > we
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > try
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > to
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > exceed
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > that. I'm going to try to confirm that.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Henning Rogge
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > <(spam-protected)>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> Hi,
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> I must admit that I am not convinced that its an
> Olsrd
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> bug
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> what
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> we
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> are
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> seeing...
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> If I see it correctly Olsrd is running over the VPN
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> interface
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> connection (interface name "vpn"), right?
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> Is the VPN connection between the nodes still active
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> during
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> the
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> route
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> loss? Most of the nodes seem to have direct
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> connections
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> and
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> the
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> "30
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> seconds until recovery" sounds like an ETX value
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> slowly
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> going
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> down
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> and
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> then dropping the link.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> Henning
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Saverio Proto
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> <(spam-protected)>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > Hello Russel,
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > looking at this:
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-before.txt
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-during.txt
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-after.txt
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > it looks like IPv6 routes are removed from the
> olsrd
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > database.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > So
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > I
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > is
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > actually the olsrd daemon involved.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > do you know if there is a previous stable version
> of
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > olsrd
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > where
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > this
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > bug/behaviour is not present ?
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > In my opinion the fastest way to track the bug is
> to
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > try
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > different
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > versions of olsrd with "git bisect" method.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > The first step is to tell us if there is a version
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > of
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > olsrd
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > that
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > is
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > not affected by this problem.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > thanks
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > I cc: olsrd-dev
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > Saverio
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > 2014-03-27 10:37 GMT+01:00 Russell Senior
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > <(spam-protected)>:
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>>>>>> "Henning" == Henning Rogge
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>>>>>> <(spam-protected)>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>>>>>> writes:
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> On 03/26/2014 07:41 PM, Russell Senior
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>>> Anybody get a chance to look at the strace? I
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>>> see
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>>> a:
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> strace and packet dumps are much too
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> lowlevel
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> directly
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> hunt problems like this. Thats why
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Saverios
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> question
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> about
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> txtinfo good, because it gives you a
> much
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> more
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> high-level
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> view on what is going on.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> I had not installed the modules previously, so
> that
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> interface
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> wasn't
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> immediately available. It is now.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> [...]
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> Okay, lets get back to the high-level
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> view.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> To interpret the events you described we
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> need
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> list
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> nodes, with their interface IPs and the
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> connectivity
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> between
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> them.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Here is the list of neighbors of
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> 2001:470:e962::407.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> The
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> addresses
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> listed are on the public wifi. The OpenVPN
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> addresses
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> each
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> node
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> are
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> a permutation, e.g. if the public wifi addr is
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> 2001:470:e962:wxyz::1,
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> then the OpenVPN address of the node is
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> 2001:470:e962::wxyz.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> None of the nodes connect directly, everything
> goes
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> through
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> ::407.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> From curl -6 http://localhost:$port/neighbors
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-neighbors.txt
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> I am also a bit worried about your usage
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> bridges
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> connected to mesh interfaces. Normally
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> should
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> no
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> bridge
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> any interface that OLSR uses for
> meshing.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Mixing
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> routing
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> (L3) and bridging (L2) can go wrong in
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> very
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> creative
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> ways.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> I don't understand how the bridges could be a
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> problem
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> this
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> case.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> This is a hub and spoke topology. One openvpn
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> server
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> middle,
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> nodes at the edges. None of the nodes
> interconnect
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> otherwise.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Olsr
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> is broadcast on the wifi in case there are any
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> olsrd
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> devices
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> nearby,
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> but, again, there is no overlap in the wifi
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> coverage
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> (and
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> if
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> there
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> were physically, they are on different SSIDs and
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> wouldn't
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> overlap
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> logically).
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Can you explain more about what in particularly
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> would
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> make
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> worry?
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> This configuration has been stable for us on ipv4
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> years
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> also
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> on ipv6 until very recently, since late 2012 at
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> least.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> So, I
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> suspect
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> a bug. Somewhere.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> Txtinfo output would be good (especially
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> /route)
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> would
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> be
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> good to see... before the problem,
> during
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> problem
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> after the recovery.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> I'm using curl -6 http://localhost:$port/routes
> to
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> get
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> following
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> data, before, during and after turning on an ipv6
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> olsrd
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> on a
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> particular node (2001:470:e962:11c1::1).
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-before.txt
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-during.txt
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-after.txt
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> It would also help if you can reduce the
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> number
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> nodes
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> while still replicating the problem to a
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> minimum.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> I don't have that level of control,
> unfortunately.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> When
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> I
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> notice
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> the ipv6 routes have collapsed, I pick a likely
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> seeming
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> node
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> (maybe
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> because it had been plugged in recently) and turn
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> off
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> ipv6
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> olsrd,
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> over 30-60 seconds, magically the routes all come
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> back.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> My
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> luck
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> guessing the right node to turn off is a little
> bit
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> "too
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> good",
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> if
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> know what I mean, so that I am not sure there is
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> anything
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> particularly
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> unique about the node I choose. But,
> nevertheless,
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> turning
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> it
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> off
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> seems to help, generally.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> FWIW, I'm including olsrd versions here. The
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> central
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> machine
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> ::407
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> running 0.6.6.1, compiled from the tarball. The
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> nodes
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> have
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> following versions, all built from openwrt
> routing
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> feed
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> sources.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-versions-by-node.txt
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Here is a table listing the frequency of each
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> openwrt
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> version:
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> 1 0.6.3-3
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> 33 0.6.4-1
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> 1 0.6.5.1-1
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> 1 0.6.5.1-2
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> 7 0.6.5.2-1
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> 1 0.6.5.3-1
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> 2 0.6.5.4-1
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> 2 0.6.6-2
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> 7 0.6.6-3
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> 11 0.6.6.1-1
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Russell Senior, President
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> (spam-protected)
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Olsr-users mailing list
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> (spam-protected)
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
> https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-users
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > --
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > 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-users/attachments/20140328/c89a0e51/attachment.html>
More information about the Olsr-users
mailing list