[mesh-dev] Slightly strange tunneldigger behavior?

Mitar mitar at tnode.com
Mon May 25 17:13:19 PDT 2015 

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 at 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
>>
>>> 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at my:~# ip addr show eth0.1
>>>>>> 11: eth0.1 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>> https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/mesh-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> http://mitar.tnode.com/
>>>>> https://twitter.com/mitar_m
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> http://mitar.tnode.com/
>> https://twitter.com/mitar_m
>>
> 

-- 
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m

More information about the mesh-dev mailing list