11 Nov
2007
11 Nov
'07
3:55 p.m.
2007/11/10, Axel Neumann <axel(a)open-mesh.net>et>:
On Freitag 09 November 2007, Stefano Scipioni wrote:
No, I use master address
I'm testing batman 0.3 exp rv 777
traceroute give me a problem
root@sala:~$ traceroute 10.0.1.1
traceroute: can't find interface
root@sala:~$ ip route ls tab 66
10.1.5.104 dev ath0 proto static scope link src 10.1.5.102
10.1.5.130 via 10.1.5.104 dev ath0 proto static
10.1.5.129 via 10.1.5.1 dev ath0 proto static
10.1.5.1 via 10.1.5.104 dev ath0 proto static
root@sala:~$ ip route ls tab 65
10.0.1.0/24 via 10.1.5.1 dev ath0 proto static
root@sala:~$ traceroute 10.0.1.1
traceroute: can't find interface
root@sala:~$ ping 10.0.1.1
PING 10.0.1.1 (10.0.1.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: seq=0 ttl=61 time=9.119 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: seq=1 ttl=61 time=8.486 ms
traceroute works If I utilize source address option.
What is my mistake?
i think theres no mistake, busybox-traceroute is just to stupid to figure out
the correct src ip. In my test, tcpdump showed that it uses the first
(non-alias) address of the outgoing interface. No matter if the route to the
destination specifies the src address or not. Did you use an alias interfaces
for this scenrio? And even better, the traceroute on my notebook chooses
the correct outgoing
src address but unless i specify it also manually it does not work either.
The reason is a corrupted udp checksum which is verified by the final
destination of the packet.
I choose to utilize tcptraceroute in kamikaze packages
Now I have other question about routing...
I have 4 nodes: A,B,C and D
A-------B-------D
\-------C-------/
fromA> D via B dev ath0 proto static
fromD> A via C dev ath0 proto static
When A talk to D choose B while when D talk to A choose C.
In this scenario node D can't talk to A for example with ping.
Is correct this type of routing?