Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] routing problem? / Changes in exp rv790

Hi I have difficulties to clearly understand the last two lines. Is this what routing table 66 or table 65 tells you at node A and D. Perhaps its easier if you just paste the command and output of the command which revealed this information, might also simplify to find other reasons for strange behavior. In this sense, one question? Do you use different networks/netmasks for the different links. Because this might be one reason for problems. The thing is: when the batman network of node A is different from the batman networks used by node D then D will not search its routing table 66 for the appropriate route to node A. Even if the correct route form D to A is listed by the command: ip r ls t 66 The problem are the rules which are configured by the batman daemon. The command: "ip rule" on node D might show something like: 0: from all lookup local 6599: from all lookup 65 6600: from all to x.y.D.0/24 lookup 66 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup default while on node A it might show the same except for one line: 6600: from all to x.y.A.0/24 lookup 66 Rule 6600 tells the network layer to only search table 66 for certain destinations. And if D is searching for a destination in x.y.A.0/24 it will not fit :-(. Anyway, because there has been so much confusion about this, i changed this with exp 0.3 revision 790. The daemon now configures the critical rule as: 6600: from all lookup 66 No more restrictions for table 66. This should always fit. Since revision 790, also the unreachable rule is omitted by default, which has been another reason for confusion. If you (or others) want to have back the old unreachable rules or the restrictive mask for table 66, the daemon may be started with the --more-rules switch. does ping really not work? Why not? According to your setup, both routes would work. This would be a typical case for asymmetric routing. But generally nothing speaks against such a route. ciao /axel