25 May
2015
25 May
'15
4:59 p.m.
Hi!
BTW, make pull requests with your changes upstream. ;-)
And committing commits into master is not upstream friendly. It would be
much better if you would have "sudoroom" branch inside your fork (you
can configure it as a default in GitHub) and you have your working
version of tunneldigger there. And then you make feature branches and
make pull requests from there up.
Because now is the problem that we have to merge exactly the commit you
made upstream. If we do not do that, and for example merge a rebased
commit. Then from then on you will have a different master branch in
your git history, which will interfere with any other future pull requests.
Mitar
Hi!
We have general development mailing list, and nodewatcher mailing list.
So because that are two main projects, development mailing is mostly
about tunneldigger.
But you will not die if you get from time to time also some e-mail about
how people are connecting sensors to nodes, or some other mesh-related
technology like info about a new cheap router on the market. :-)
Our mailing lists are pretty quiet, we mostly use real-time chat for
most work. Probably it would even be the easiest just to jump to our
channel. That is the most effective way.
http://dev.wlan-si.net/wiki/Skype
Yea, closed source. ;-)
For development in fact we mostly use our development Trac and tickets.
We prefer having discussions about particular things there, so that they
stay nicely documented and searchable. You can also open a ticket there,
attach your logs and stuff. This is in fact even more preferred way than
Skype and mailing lists. But it seems people prefer real-time chat over
a long-term more useful tickets. :-)
Mitar
--
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m
Oh wait Mitar, there isn't a specific
tunneldigger list is there? Just the
wlan-si dev right?
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Mitar <mitar(a)tnode.com> wrote:
Hi!
Interesting.
Such things would be useful to cross-post also to tunneldigger
development mailing list:
https://wlan-si.net/lists/info/development
Maybe also some other users encountered that.
Mitar
Hey so I'm trying to debug some slightly
strange tunneldigger behaviour
and
thought I'd check to see if anyone here has
any thoughts.
This page shows ping times to a few mesh nodes from a VPS monitor server:
http://192.241.217.196/smokeping/smokeping.cgi?target=Mesh
Both MaxbMyNet1 and MaxbMyNet2 show a consistent increase in ping times
starting Monday (5-25-15) at like 11am or so.
MaxbMyNet1 has a direct ethernet connection to the internet and is
tunnelling to the exit server, while MaxbMyNet2 does not have any
ethernet
connection and is instead connecting to the
internet through MaxbMyNet1.
If I ssh into MaxbMyNet1, I can see that the l2tp0 tunnel is correctly
setup and that tunneldigger seems to be working correctly:
root@my:~# ps | grep tunneldigger
9538 root 5296 S /usr/bin/tunneldigger -u Sudomesh-MyNet-2 -i
l2tp0 -t 1 -b 104.236.181.226 8942 -L 20000kbit -s /opt/mesh/tunnel_hook
-I
eth0.1
root@my:~# ip addr show l2tp0
18: l2tp0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1438 qdisc htb state
UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000
link/ether da:d8:46:b7:d7:9b brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 100.64.3.1/32 scope global l2tp0
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 fe80::d8d8:46ff:feb7:d79b/64 scope link
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
root@my:~# ip addr show eth0.1
11: eth0.1@eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc
noqueue
state UP group default
link/ether 00:90:a9:0b:73:cb brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.13.37/24 brd 192.168.13.255 scope global eth0.1
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet 192.168.0.102/24 brd 192.168.0.255 scope global eth0.1
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 fe80::290:a9ff:fe0b:73cb/64 scope link
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
Even more strangely, I can ping the world-routable IP of the exit server
and get back ping times consistent with the lower line of the graph:
root@my:~# ping 104.236.181.226
PING 104.236.181.226 (104.236.181.226): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 104.236.181.226: seq=0 ttl=52 time=14.670 ms
64 bytes from 104.236.181.226: seq=1 ttl=52 time=14.264 ms
64 bytes from 104.236.181.226: seq=2 ttl=52 time=13.241 ms
64 bytes from 104.236.181.226: seq=3 ttl=52 time=13.949 ms
64 bytes from 104.236.181.226: seq=4 ttl=52 time=13.626 ms
64 bytes from 104.236.181.226: seq=5 ttl=52 time=18.133 ms
64 bytes from 104.236.181.226: seq=6 ttl=52 time=13.531 ms
And if I manually specify ping packets to go over the eth0.1 interface
and
NOT the l2tp0 interface they have low ping
times:
root@my:~# ping -I eth0.1 8.8.8.8
PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=0 ttl=55 time=21.834 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=1 ttl=55 time=16.872 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=2 ttl=55 time=19.764 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=3 ttl=55 time=17.265 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=4 ttl=55 time=16.989 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=5 ttl=55 time=18.188 ms
However, if I ping over the tunnel and through the exit server I get the
slower times:
root@my:~# ping 8.8.8.8
PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=0 ttl=56 time=28.958 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=1 ttl=56 time=29.211 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=2 ttl=56 time=28.965 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=3 ttl=56 time=29.022 ms
And then, weirdly, restarting tunneldigger on the MyNet seems to have
fixed
it (look for the new line that will proably start
around 16:00 on Monday
which will be at the lower time).
Thoughts? I'll keep taking a look at it, and it's possible it has
something
to do with our up hook on the exit server which
adds the new l2tp
interface
to babel, but wanted to put it out there in case
anyone had any ideas.
Max
_______________________________________________
mesh-dev mailing list
mesh-dev(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/mesh-dev
--
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m