Bugs item #3511424, was opened at 2012-03-26 06:36 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by kargor You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=843359&aid=3511424&group_id=167540
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Network Layer Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 7 Private: No Submitted By: Stefan Rossbach (kargor) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Transport Layer establishes wrong connections Initial Comment: DEBUG 2012-03-25 18:00:39,554 (Socks5Transport.java:299) [SOCKS5] stream is unidirectional. Trying to wrap bidirectional one. DEBUG 2012-03-25 18:00:39,554 (Socks5Transport.java:228) [SOCKS5] response connection is mediated, too, and the server does not allow bidirectional connections. Wrapped session established. DEBUG 2012-03-25 18:00:39,560 (DataTransferManager.java:465) Bytestream connection changed SOCKS5 (mediated) DEBUG 2012-03-25 18:00:39,560 (BinaryChannelConnection.java:53) SOCKS5 (mediated) [[email protected]/Saros] ReceiverThread started. INFO 2012-03-25 18:00:39,686 (ByteStreamTransport.java:71) Received request to establish a IBB bytestream connection from [email protected]/Saros DEBUG 2012-03-25 18:00:39,692 (DataTransferManager.java:465) Bytestream connection changed IBB DEBUG 2012-03-25 18:00:39,693 (BinaryChannelConnection.java:53) IBB [[email protected]/Saros] ReceiverThread started. The mediated connection got downgraded to IBB. Also can anyone confirm that saros-con.imp.fu-berlin.de does not support bidirectional Socks5 Mediated connections ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Stefan Rossbach (kargor) Date: 2012-06-28 07:39 Message: It is not hard to reach 10 KB/s. Even a single transfered character takes about 400 - 600 Bytes. Transfering approx. 3 MBytes (average project size) at ISDN speed reminds me to my first days in the internet using Napster. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Franz Zieris (franzzieris) Date: 2012-06-28 04:03 Message: It's hard to follow your line of thought. Does this problem only occur on machines that are reachable via a dozen IPs, or does this scenario also apply for less exotic settings? In order to make your point clear you should try to find a minimum scenario. Do I get you right: The problem is, that there are scenarios in which the best possible connection between two Saros users is not established because of the unfortunate execution order of the setup steps? And the only result is a low-bandwidth connection? What are the "visible" results in a Saros Session (I imagine that even a olympic typist can't beat 10 KByte/s)? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Stefan Rossbach (kargor) Date: 2012-06-27 13:38 Message: I can give you one: Client A: 2 IP addresses (public, eth0) both not reachable Client B: 8 IP addresses (public is reachable) Smack impl. sequentielly try connecting to each IP, 2 seconds timeout, at least it returns a mediated connection (if there is any) Let the fun begin: B should connect to A in the meantime, A connects to B B will get a mediated connection B waits for possible timeout of A (which will be 2 * 8 = 16 sec.) B timed out (hardcoded in Socks5Transport class and is less than 16 seconds), but A is still connecting. A establish a direct connection, but B already checks if the mediated connection is bidirectional. No response from A, because A have a direct connection. Result: Established connection will be IBB. Solution, A connects to B, if that fails, B tries to connect to A. In that order but not concurrently ! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Franz Zieris (franzzieris) Date: 2012-05-23 09:11 Message: I can not evaluate the necessity of priority "7" on this. Could someone explain it to me, please? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Norman Warnatsch (nwarnatsch) Date: 2012-03-26 07:28 Message: I don't think, that's a problem of saros-con.imp.fu-berlin.de. Sock5 (mediated) have to work like the following scenario: Our server just sends requests from Requester to Target. Requester have to know the address of the host and sends a negotiation with host-address to the target. Target opens a tcp-connection to host, requester to host, too.. The host is now the proxy for the connection between Requester and Target. Take a look to: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0065.html So, saros-con.imp.fu-berlin.de shouldn't have a problem with bidirectional connections because it just should send the Sock5(mediated)-negotiations, nothing else. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=843359&aid=3511424&group_id=167540 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Dpp-robot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dpp-robot
