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

[Jernej Kos]

Hello!

I think it is only the link towards the central node that fails. At
least on one node that I checked, the other links were fine.


Jernej

On 03. 05. 2015 20:03, Henning Rogge wrote:
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.olsr.org/pipermail/olsr-users/attachments/20150503/ea341f8b/attachment.sig>