Hi Jan,
On Montag 21 April 2008, Jan Hetges wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 02:57:44PM +0200, Benjamin Henrion wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Jan Hetges tran@ms20.net wrote:
i'm running bmxd_rv972 for almost three months now, without any mayor problems :-)... thanks. what i recognized lately, on two nodes (the ones with more than one bmx interface), show alternativeNextHops, which are *NO* alternative. It seems there gets some 'information' lost between the two IFs. I suppose that's a known issue ;-),
It is NOT a known issue (at least not to me) and if its a bug it should be fixed.
fix/workaround ? iirc, i saw once or twice a node "on the other interface" even listed as the bestNextHop.
Can you describe a little more extensively your network configuration?
sorry ;-):
x.x.0.0/24---x.x.0.1/x.x.3.1---x.x.3.0/24---x.x.3.160/x.x.4.1---x.x.4.0/24
One general questions: do all your interfaces operate on the same frequency?
Then, I am unsure about the netmasks you are using. The above line I understand that you are using x.x.3.0/24 and x.x.4.0/24 netmasks. Generally, It is strongly recommended to always use the same netmask on ALL batman interfaces ! In your case there is: x.x.3.160/24 for one interface on the 3.160 node which should result in a broadcast address of x.x.3.255. But according to the debug output there is a direct link to x.x.4.165/24 (which I guess has broadcast address of x.x.4.255) and therefore the two interfaces should not see each other!!?? Can you verify that (note that the "ifconfig dev ip/netmask" command is buggy and does not always produce corresponding netmask and broadcast addresses and that the interfaces MUST be configured appropriately before the daemon is started. !!!)
.0.1/.3.1 is one node with two radios, and .3.160/.4.1 the other one. and, .3.160/.4.1 lists .4.162 as alternativeNextHop to .3.128. where .3.1 and .3.137 can see .3.128, but .4.162 can not.
An alternativeNextHop to a specific node must not necessarily be a direct neighbor of that node. For example in the following scenario:
A---B---D | | +---E---+
From As' point of view B and E may both be potential next hops towards D. But only E
can directly see D.
Is it possible to generate (almost simultaneously) -cbd8 logs from the involved nodes, especially 3.1, 3.160, 4.162, 3.128.
So, there is a real alternativeNextHop to .3.128 ... .3.137, which is listed after .4.162 on .3.160/.4.1. I attach the output of bmxd -cbd8.
The attached debug log shows: 172.19.3.128 wlan0:bmx 172.19.3.1 80 ( 97 1:01:20:33 15813 0 100 1012 18 2 1 ) 172.19.4.162 67 172.19.3.140 2
At least this line does not show 3.137 listed after .4.162 on .3.160/.4.1 Has it been truncated ??
Looking forward to solve this... best regards, axel