Hi Gianfranco
Please keep the mailing list in the CC.
On 08/06/2015 03:49 PM, Gianfranco Casanova wrote:
> Hi Daniel
>
> sorry for the delay. We retested the ConnMan with the patches but we are
> not able to have the two route at the same time.
> The first problem is that:
>
> connmanctl> session on
> Session /sessions/_1_68/net/connman/connmanctl1831 created
> Session Update = {
> State = online
> Name = Telecom-92280231
> IPv4 = [ Method=dhcp, Address=192.168.1.203, Netmask=255.255.255.0,
> Gateway=192.168.1.1 ]
> IPv6 = [ ]
> Interface = wlan0
> Bearer = wifi
> ConnectionType = any
> AllowedBearers = [ ethernet, wifi, bluetooth, cellular, gadget ]
> }
> Session /sessions/_1_68/net/connman/connmanctl1831 connected
>
> connmanctl> session on
> Session /sessions/_1_70/net/connman/connmanctl1843 created
> Session Update = {
> State = online
> Name = Telecom-92280231
> IPv4 = [ Method=dhcp, Address=192.168.1.203, Netmask=255.255.255.0,
> Gateway=192.168.1.1 ]
> IPv6 = [ ]
> Interface = wlan0
> Bearer = wifi
> ConnectionType = any
> AllowedBearers = [ ethernet, wifi, bluetooth, cellular, gadget ]
> }
> Session /sessions/_1_70/net/connman/connmanctl1843 connected
> connmanctl>
Ah, that is an oversight in my "session_policy_local: Set defaults when
using policy file" patch. The default values are not discarded when
there is a AllowedBearers defined in the policy file. Good catch. I'll
send an updated version.
> The NAT table are:
>
> # iptables -t nat -L
> Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT)
> target prot opt source destination
>
> Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT)
> target prot opt source destination
>
> Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT)
> target prot opt source destination
>
> Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT)
> target prot opt source destination
>
> Seems at first that the policy files are not more read correctly.
Yep, the default values are extended instead of exchanged.
> The second problem is again the default route for the connection in
> READY state is not added and than the related table is empty.
Ignore the routing table as I have explained before.
> Did you had the same problem?
No, the NAT rules are inserted and I could verify that the packets are
sent through the correct interface. Please send a complete log from
ConnMan (The output from 'connmand -n -d')
Thanks,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
connman mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
