From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: "gary" References: <02ef01d466a6$f0c629f0$d2527dd0$@sina.com> <19500073.zgPyDjR2lk@bentobox> <100c018ff42541ddb2615fae42bc64f62ced80b4.camel@sdl.usu.edu> <1897809.X9xPm7IOO6@bentobox> <042f01d46c41$fe24ddd0$fa6e9970$@sina.com> <98bb1f935c1da5ecdb978b7c95e243ec5c81f04a.camel@sdl.usu.edu> In-Reply-To: <98bb1f935c1da5ecdb978b7c95e243ec5c81f04a.camel@sdl.usu.edu> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:24:23 +0800 Message-ID: <001901d47010$d20e57d0$762b0770$@sina.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: zh-cn Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] alfred and batadv-vis issue List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: 'Jonathan Haws' , sven@narfation.org Cc: b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org In my test setup, both BBN1/2 and MP1/2 are in one subnet.=20 ipv4_arp_request ret =3D -1 interface =3D0x120020070 sipaddr =3D = 0x50505f7 (the first try, sipaddr is right) ipv4_arp_request ret =3D 0 interface =3D0x120020070 sipaddr =3D = 0x50505f7 (the second try with latest patch) the cause should be there is no arp entry for the source ip address at = the first try. -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Haws =20 Sent: 2018=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=8830=E6=97=A5 0:07 To: guohuizou2000@sina.com; sven@narfation.org Cc: b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] alfred and batadv-vis issue > The patch does NOT work for me. >=20 > I review the code again and find the issue. The following code may=20 > make my testbed work. Gary - can you describe to me some more details of your test setup?=20 How are BBN1 and BBN2 configured? Are they machines with two different = Ethernet interfaces (i.e. each having one connected to the downstream = node and one connected to the switch)? Are they more or less acting as = routers (i.e. doing IP forwarding)? The testing I have been doing is just connecting MP1 and MP2 to the same = switch and having them on the same subnet. Is that not the case in your = setup? The other thing I am interested in is what is the result of the first ioctl() call? I'm guessing it has to be failing, or else the patch would = have worked for you. Can you add a print statement before the return = that would give the error string as well as the interface and IP (i.e. = interface->interface and addr->ipv4.s_addr)? That would be helpful in = helping me find the root issue. One thing to note (and Sven, maybe you can tell me if this is expected): in my testing I found that alfred is getting into this = ipv4_arp_request call for the local node as well, thus the very first ioctl() will fail with "No such device or address". Should there be a = check for this being the local node and just discard it before making = the check or is making the check all the time then discarding okay?