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

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 and ethernet -I noqueue and fixed something interface -- 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

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 &lt;mitar(a)tnode.com&gt; wrote: