25 May
2015
25 May
'15
4:02 p.m.
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
25 May
25 May
4:25 p.m.
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
4:31 p.m.
Cool yeah I should definitely be subscribed to that list by now ;)
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
4:49 p.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
4:54 p.m.
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
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:
--
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m
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
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
5:05 p.m.
Yeah we had this conversation ;)
I went and fixed the repo recently so that we had a cleaner line between
the two. Shouldn't be too much of a difference if we're developing on
"master" and keep a clean "upstream" branch though right?
I can go through maybe this week and put together a pull request. Thanks
for the reminder.
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Mitar <mitar(a)tnode.com> wrote:
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
--
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m
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
> 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
5:13 p.m.
Hi!
Hm, but then you have to remember all the time to upstream master into
your upstream branch, and not into your master branch. Good luck with
that. :-) But yea, it could just work. I just prefer to have simple
workflow where I can do:
git pull upstream
and it pulls from upstream master into my local master. And then I do:
git checkout wlanslovenija
git merge master
To update our branch with latest from uptream master. So wlanslovenija
is then the dirty one with all stuff we are using.
So we have something like:
master
extra-feature1
extra-feature2
wlanslovenija
So wlanslovenija is merge of master, extra-feature1, extra-feature2.
master is kept with upstream master. And we make pull requests from
extra-feature1 into upstream master. (This is especially useful when
there are further commits requested from upstream before the pull
request is merged in.)
But this is just how it works the best for us. There are also other
patterns you can use. I just wanted to share it because it took quite
some time to find something which worked for us. (And which doesn't make
us angry or makes things problematic when upstream does not want to
merge some feature.)
About DNS code. Kostko is saying that he knows the code is bad because
he just used an existing library for that. Sadly he could not use glibc
nonblocking resolver because glibc is not available on OpenWrt. So
improvements there are also welcome.
Mitar
Yeah we had this conversation ;)
I went and fixed the repo recently so that we had a cleaner line between
the two. Shouldn't be too much of a difference if we're developing on
"master" and keep a clean "upstream" branch though right?
I can go through maybe this week and put together a pull request. Thanks
for the reminder.
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Mitar <mitar(a)tnode.com> wrote:
--
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_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
--
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m
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
> 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
>
11 p.m.
Hello!
On 26. 05. 2015 01:02, max b wrote:
However, if I ping over the tunnel and through the
exit server I get the
slower times:
Did you also try pinging just the other tunnel endpoint, without routing
through the exit server?
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.
This looks really strange. So you are adding each l2tp interface to
Babel? I see that you made some patches to enable dynamic interface
modifications? Was there any suspicious tunneldigger CPU usage? Are you
using any kind of traffic shaping?
Because as data forwarding goes exclusively over the kernel's L2TP
implementation, I don't see why removing and re-creating a tunnel would
improve latency.
Jernej
3258
days inactive
3259
days old
8 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Jernej Kos -
max b -
Mitar