I looked into the code. Idle tunnel means no channel, but it is checked
only if

CADET_TUNNEL_KEY_UNINITIALIZED

and the destroy_tunnel task is scheduled and triggered after 90 seconds

On 21.03.19 21:16, t3sserakt wrote:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> is this major issue of identifying a specific tunnel documented somewhere?
>
> Is this issue the reason why I only see the output of /GNUNET_i2s_full
> (peer)/ where the tunnel is to be identified? Then the only additional
> information the '-t' option was giving is the identifiers of channels
> and connections.
>
> Maybe I describe the problem I am searching after a bit more in
> detail, to let you know why I hoped the '-t' option could give me
> helpful information.
>
> When I am testing the connectivity between nodes via cadet. Sometimes
> the creation of a functioning channel I can use for sending messages
> between nodes back and forth is within seconds, sometimes it need
> minutes or hours, or I stop the testing, because it takes to long.
> These tests are exploratory by doing manual real world tests. No
> automatic testing.
>
> In the case of not being able to send messages from one node to the
> other, I see - using the '-P' and '-T' option - on one node there is
> both a tunnel and a channel to the other node, on the other node I
> never see a channel and sometimes a tunnel. How is it possible to have
> one node having tunnel and channel to the other node, if the other
> nodes knows nothing about this channel and tunnel.
>
> In the logs of the node sometimes knowing of a tunnel and sometimes
> not, I see the tunnel is created and destroyed (because being idle) in
> short intervals. So it looks like there is some basic connectivity
> between those nodes, otherwise the tunnel would not be created again
> and again, right?
>
> So my best guess at the moment is, that we maybe might have a similar
> problem with the reliability of message send back and forth between
> nodes for channel creation.
>
> Another finding is, that despite the fact that on one node
> gnunet-cadet is showing me the existence of a tunnel all the time I
> see a lot of
>
> "Trying to make KX progress on Tunnel XXXX in state
> CADET_TUNNEL_KEY_AX_AUTH_SENT"
>
> log messages.
>
> Before I start searching for the needle in the haystack, do you have
> any idea where to start my search in the code, or if it might be
> another reason to look after than reliability of channel creation
> messages?
>
> Happy hacking!
>
> t3ss
>
> On 20.03.19 08:47, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>> Hi t3ss,
>>
>> Well, what the old '-t' option showed wasn't really useful for current
>> CADET, and it wasn't obvious to me what we would want to show that
>> wasn't covered by the '-P', '-p' and '-T' options post #5385.
>> Furthermore, there is the major issue of identifying a specific
>> 'tunnel'.  So right now, the '-p' option covers (most of?) this, and
>> usually I would say that if there were more information to be returned,
>> it could probably be included in the existing -pPT option family.
>>
>> That said, if you have some information to be returned that is not
>> easily covered by extending -pPT, I'm not against re-introducing '-t'.
>> It just didn't seem to serve any useful purpose anymore.
>>
>> Happy hacking!
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> On 3/20/19 7:15 AM, t3sserakt wrote:
>>> Hey Christian,
>>>
>>>
>>> after the fix of #5385 gnunet-cadet had no "-t" option anymore to show
>>> info about a specific tunnel. why that?
>>> Do we "only" need to reimplement this option with the asynchronous API
>>> that was introduced with #5385?
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>> t3ss
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GNUnet-developers mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNUnet-developers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
GNUnet-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers

Reply via email to