[Babel-users] breaking the ath9k in adhoc mode with the new fq_codel implementation

So, thank you for exposing a bug in my code today. The new ath9k fq_codel code at the 802.11 mac layer bypasses the qdisc... root@dancer:~/Pictures# tc -s qdisc show dev wlp2s0 qdisc noqueue 0: root refcnt 2 Sent 0 bytes 0 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 and

Re: [Babel-users] babelweb "time to dump"

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016, at 19:16, Dave Taht wrote: > Another useful stat in babel web would be for it to time how long > it takes to get a dump > It uses the streaming interface, not the dump one. -- Gabriel ___ Babel-users mailing list

Re: [Babel-users] Control socket language [wass Babel on itty bitty boxes]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Gabriel Kerneis wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016, at 17:53, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> > PS: I am loving the new "dump" functionality. Tons easier to read than >> > a logfile. echo 'dump' | nc ::1 33123. >> >> Thanks for the kind words. >>

Re: [Babel-users] Babel on itty bitty boxes

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Matthieu Boutier wrote: >> Why don't you write to the netdev list to ask what's a reliable way to >> detect IPv6_SUBTREES? > > Yes, I'm asking myself if the Dave's "invalid argument" are for > source-specific routes. In which

Re: [Babel-users] Babel on itty bitty boxes

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Matthieu Boutier wrote: >> I put a babel debug 3 log up at: >> >> http://www.taht.net/~d/babeld_pi3.log > > Strange, there is no more "kernel_route(ADD): invalid argument" lines. Is it > really the same node, with the same

Re: [Babel-users] Babel on itty bitty boxes

> Why don't you write to the netdev list to ask what's a reliable way to > detect IPv6_SUBTREES? Yes, I'm asking myself if the Dave's "invalid argument" are for source-specific routes. In which case it answers the question. Will test it. Matthieu

Re: [Babel-users] Babel on itty bitty boxes

> I put a babel debug 3 log up at: > > http://www.taht.net/~d/babeld_pi3.log Strange, there is no more "kernel_route(ADD): invalid argument" lines. Is it really the same node, with the same options ? So you should have all the right routes in the FIB, no ? Matthieu PS: sorry for your flash

Re: [Babel-users] Babel on itty bitty boxes

> "Autodetection" is just based on the kernel version (via uname). So > it's normal it doesn't change anything on c1 (3.10 < 3.11). And it's > normal too that you need to use it on c2 (3.14 > 3.11, but compiled > without IPv6_SUBTREES). Matthieu, Why don't you write to the netdev list to ask

Re: [Babel-users] Babel on itty bitty boxes

> It did not fix the 3.10 kernel based c1. > > So autodetection is broken on the c2 & c1 kernels "Autodetection" is just based on the kernel version (via uname). So it's normal it doesn't change anything on c1 (3.10 < 3.11). And it's normal too that you need to use it on c2 (3.14 > 3.11, but