[Olsr-users] Received message to big to be forwarded

[Henning Rogge]

Just another question...

is it only the link towards the central node that gets killed? Or do
you see some malfunction at other links of these neighbors?

Henning

On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Jernej Kos <(spam-protected)> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Yes, I think that all the failing links were towards the central nodes
> that were patched (the other nodes were not patched). But I can't be sure.
>
> So on the failing nodes, all the routing table entries towards the
> patched nodes were removed, while entries towards other neighbours were
> still there.
>
>
> Jernej
>
> On 01. 05. 2015 10:15, Henning Rogge wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> just to be sure, we are talking about links between nodes that did not
>> had the patch? Or links of other nodes to the "big central node" ?
>>
>> Henning
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Jernej Kos <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> It seems I spoke too soon. After deploying the patch on two of the
>>> largest nodes, several other nodes started gradually loosing
>>> connectivity and after 4 hours around a hundred nodes were already
>>> unreachable.
>>>
>>> Therefore I reverted the patch on those two nodes, which caused the
>>> other nodes to become routable again. Really strange.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jernej
>>>
>>> On 30. 04. 2015 11:33, Ferry Huberts wrote:
>>>> I'll push it into deployment stream.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 30/04/15 11:23, Henning Rogge wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I will push it, it should not prevent the aggregation of larger
>>>>> packets, just the generation of large messages.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can give it a test until the next release... if we notice something
>>>>> is very wrong with the message aggregation, I have to look over it
>>>>> again.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it works, we can also backport it to the other release branches.
>>>>>
>>>>> Henning
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Ferry Huberts <(spam-protected)>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Henning,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shall we integrate your patch?
>>>>>> Can you push it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At least on master, unsure about other branches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 30/04/15 10:44, Jernej Kos wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry for taking so long, there were some other issues which prevented
>>>>>>> the tests. I've tested this again today on the nodes with most links
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> it seems that the patch does fix the issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will push the patch to our OpenWrt feeds so that we can test it more.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jernej
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28. 04. 2015 09:26, Henning Rogge wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> any news about the test?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Henning
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Jernej Kos <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ok, great, I will test it out. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jernej
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 17. 04. 2015 19:32, Henning Rogge wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> start with the "lots of neighbors" nodes... this should already
>>>>>>>>>> resolve the problem. if it works (and if we cannot find a problem
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> it) we will commit it and it will be part of the next olsrd bugfix
>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Henning
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Jernej Kos <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So it will not help at all if we deploy it only at nodes
>>>>>>>>>>> producing big
>>>>>>>>>>> announces? Then this will not help much as we can't just upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> ~400 nodes at the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jernej
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17. 04. 2015 19:26, Henning Rogge wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> you should deploy this patch on ALL nodes... it should work
>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>> the current "master branch"... but also against your source.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Henning
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Jernej Kos <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if I understand this code correctly, this will limit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> maximum
>>>>>>>>>>>>> message size that an originator node will produce? So I should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this patch at the nodes with high neighbour count?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Against which revision is this? I will test the patch over the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> weekend
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and report back.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jernej
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17. 04. 2015 16:41, Henning Rogge wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jernej,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you test the following patch?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/src/net_olsr.c b/src/net_olsr.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index afd24ec..4db54b1 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/src/net_olsr.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/src/net_olsr.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -258,7 +258,14 @@ net_outbuffer_push_reserved(struct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface_olsr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *ifp, const void *data, const
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    int
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    net_outbuffer_bytes_left(const struct interface_olsr *ifp)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -  return ifp->netbuf.maxsize - ifp->netbuf.pending;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +  /* IPv6 minimum MTU - IPv6 header - UDP header - VLAN-Tag */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +  static int MAX_REMAINING = 1280 - 40 - 8 - 4;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +  int remaining = ifp->netbuf.maxsize - ifp->netbuf.pending;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +  if (remaining > MAX_REMAINING) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +    return MAX_REMAINING;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +  }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +  return remaining;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Henning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ferry Huberts
>>>>
>>>
>