I'm still working with my IT department to be able to send the patches in a way compliant to the documentation provided by Sven. In the meantime I reworked the patches, but I am still struggling with the e-mail client issue. Nevertheless if I apply all the patches I sent earlier (except Patch 4/4 as it was meaningless) I still have 3 problems : 1. I have sometimes looping unicast packets in the direction backbone -> mesh -> backbone. Dropping all unicast traffic received from another backbone gw and destined to be forwarded to the backbone again as you suggested this in an earlier mail solves this issue. Shall I provide an according patch? Shall I add a "Suggested-by" referring to you? I feel a little bit uncomforable with this patch as it seems to be something more like a workaround. The question I cannot answer yet is why the other backbone gws send traffic via the mesh which could be sent via the backbone? 2. Although having the patch for 1. applied, the backbone gateways send claim frames for the devices of their own backbone in rare cases from time to time. I could send a patch for this as it is rather easy to check with the help of the local tt table (batadv_is_my_client) if it is reasonable to send a claim frame for these devices. Again, this patch looks more like a workaround to me as I also cannot explain what really triggers the generation of these claim frames. 3. I see again in rare cases looping multicasts for traffic mesh->backbone->mesh. If I look at the bla debug messages in these cases I see, that a backbone gw holding the claim for the source of the multicast frame thinks that the client belonging to the source address has "roamed" from another mesh node into the backbone network although it didn't. From this I conclude that another backbone gw has forwarded the multicast into the backbone although it shoudn't have done this (having found no claim for the client or erroneously also holding a claim). In this case the backbone gateways seem to be out-of-sync about the actual claim status for that client. This effect only lasts a very short time, as the gateway which found the "roaming" client unclaims it and within a few milliseconds (depending on the traffic generated by the client) another backbone gw (or the same) claims the client again. Of course then the looping of the multicast traffic from the client stops. In my case the sender of the multicast was the bridge interface br0 of a remote mesh node itself. The bat0 softinterface was added to that bridge. The looping multicast then gave me a "bat0: received packet with own address as source address" message. Furthermore that bat0 interface sent a claim frame for the mac of the own bridge (whch is obvious as bat0 received a message from the mesh with a mac address not claimed yet....). This claim frame then produces another "bat0: received packet ..." message. I currently have no workaround for this 3rd issue as all I can image to prevent this will break the "roaming client" scenario for bla. I could even live with this problem as it happens quite seldomly and as it is "self-healing", but it tells my that there might be a sync issue. Do you think that my 1st and 2nd point could also relate to the same problem? In the meantime I looked through the code for hours but I am not able to find something that could explain the observed problem.
Kind regards, Andreas
.................................................................. PHOENIX CONTACT ELECTRONICS GmbH
Sitz der Gesellschaft / registered office of the company: 31812 Bad Pyrmont USt-Id-Nr.: DE811742156 Amtsgericht Hannover HRB 100528 / district court Hannover HRB 100528 Geschäftsführer / Executive Board: Roland Bent, Dr. Martin Heubeck ___________________________________________________________________ Diese E-Mail enthält vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren, jegliche anderweitige Verwendung sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail ist nicht gestattet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure, distribution or other use of the material or parts thereof is strictly forbidden. ___________________________________________________________________