From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4930713D.40809@web.de> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:31:25 +0200 From: "Chris W." MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] 0.3.1 rv1152 - some test results References: <492DDC20.7090900@web.de> <200811280043.26990.lindner_marek@yahoo.de> <49302F8E.2040502@web.de> <20081128205145.GB25072@pandem0nium> In-Reply-To: <20081128205145.GB25072@pandem0nium> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: chris-wy@web.de Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking > Hey, > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 07:51:10PM +0200, Chris W. wrote: >> Now rv1161 is on, the reduced test area is >> http://preveli.gr/mesh/bat-228-3b.gif >> > > > The "invalid" messages probably is caused by the bad IPs (see below). > The gateway sends an "IP invalid"-message back if a not advertised IP > was used. The client then disconnects from the gateway. > > We should probably change this policy. ;) > I'd second this. > > Only the advertised IPs are allowed. However you can build a NAT for > your gateway, this would ensure that only the advertised IP is used. > Something like > > iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o gate0 -j MASQUERADE > > should do the job. (maybe add something like "--source 192.168.100.0/24" > to further constrain the traffic). Uh, this would mean double NAT in the network, sip phones don't like it. >> Thank you for the explanation. Is this module available for OpenWrt 0.9 >> broadcom somewhere ? > > I don't know of precompiled packages, maybe someone else does? :) well, I'll find a place ;-) > >> Another point is that >> even if a gateway's internet connection is down, but announced, it is >> chosen as tunnel endpoint. Something similar to the olsrd-dyn-gw would >> be great. > > Actually we have a mechanism to check for black hole gateways (on the > client). > Checked it with -r 2 -p 10.4.5.30 which is down at this time, reachable via Atheros nodes. => 10.4.5.30 ( 86) 10.4.2.72 [ ath0:1], gw_class 40 - 2048KBit/256KBit, gateway failures: 0 10.4.2.2 (140) 10.4.2.72 [ ath0:1], gw_class 40 - 2048KBit/256KBit, gateway failures: 0 10.4.2.71 (150) 10.4.2.72 [ ath0:1], gw_class 40 - 2048KBit/256KBit, gateway failures: 0 >>>> -3- previously announced networks are not deleted (8.106), the routing >>>> table collects multiple entries for the same destination >>> Thanks for the hint. Fixed in revision 1159. >>> >> Yes, no multiple entries anymore in 1161. >> >> The announced network of 2.72 gets lost after some minutes on all nodes. >> Logs show >> Nov 28 17:13:43 (none) kern.err batmand[18641]: Error - can't add route >> to 10.2.72.0/24 via 10.4.2.95 (table 65): File exists >> Nov 28 17:13:43 (none) kern.err batmand[18641]: Error - can't add route >> to 10.2.72.1/32 via 10.4.2.95 (table 65): File exists >> root@10.4.2.72:~# ip ro sh ta 65 >> 10.2.50.0/24 via 10.4.2.50 dev eth1 proto static src 10.4.2.72 >> > > Mhm, this is probably a regression in the new hna_buff_delete() function > ... but i'm not sure. The "File exists" Error should not be visible in > any case. > > Could you please (if possible) create a complete dump until the "File > exists" problems happen with debug level 4, and send this log to me and > Marek? We can have a more detailed view what's happening then. > > (call batman with -cd4 for example) > dumped > best regards, > Simon > > greetings, Christian > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > B.A.T.M.A.N mailing list > B.A.T.M.A.N@open-mesh.net > https://list.open-mesh.net/mm/listinfo/b.a.t.m.a.n