Maurice: My mistake. This was not straightforward at all. It's been a long time since I've dealt with this "bounce packet in the same network" kind of setup, and didn't have much experience anyway. It's giving me a world of problems.
(That's what you're trying to do, right? The intended outbound route is Client -> Router -> OpenWrt -> Router -> Internet, while the intended inbound route is Internet -> Router -> OpenWrt -> Client Is this correct?) I tried to replicate it yesterday using virtual machines, but was having a lot of trouble simply getting the Client -> Router -> OpenWrt segment to work. (Which means that my packets didn't even reach Jool.) I'm seemingly missing some key configuration, or am dealing with some sort of Virtualbox interface bug. Since I don't have much actual hardware within my reach right now, I was counting on having a colleague replicate the problem in the office. Unfortunately, I'm told he is out on vacations this week. Now, if this is really a Virtualbox bug, it occurs to me that I still have yet to try assembling the network with namespaces instead of virtual machines. I'm not very optimistic about this workaround, but I suppose it could turn out to solve everything. I'll give it a shot tomorrow. But I do want to let you know that *we might need to wait until next week to see any progress*. I'm sorry. On the other hand, I can offer releasing commit 89b3c109 as Jool 3.5.8 right away*. I don't really know how long would it take for the OpenWrt folk to mirror it once that's done. I know that you're not very confident about yours being the same problem as issue #267, but "TCP Retransmissions, Out-Of-Orders and Dup ACKs" are precisely the kind of traffic we get when offloads are not working correctly, and that has *everything* to do with issue #267. I cannot guarantee that it will solve the problem, but it has a pretty good chance. * The reason why I haven't done this already is because I want to jump straight from 3.5.7 to 3.6.0, and that takes quite a bit of extra effort. Commit 89b3c109 is otherwise a solid release candidate. Alberto On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 1:47 PM Alberto Leiva <[email protected]> wrote: > > Wow. It looks very straightforward. Ok, I'm testing it. > > (Just to confirm: Are offloads disabled?) > > On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 6:48 PM Maurice Walker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hello again, > > > > I now installed OpenWrt + Jool on physical hardware and still see exactly > > the same issues. The VM's synthetic NIC doesn't seem to be the culprit here. > > So back to the question if this might be related to the fact that I'm > > essentially trying to run "NAT644": > > > > Router: > > WAN: Dual Stack (one public IPv4 address) > > LAN: 2001:db8:1:1::1/64, 192.168.1.1/24 > > NAT44 from LAN to WAN > > default routes via WAN > > route 2001:db8:1:64::/64 via 2001:db8:1:1::64 > > > > OpenWrt / Jool NAT64: > > eth0: 2001:db8:1:1::64/64, 192.168.1.64/24 > > default gateways 2001:db8:1:1::1, 192.168.1.1 > > connected to LAN > > pool6=2001:db8:1:64::/96 > > no pool4 specified > > > > Clients: > > 2001:db8:1:1::x/64, default gateway 2001:db8:1:1::1, connected to LAN > > > > MTU is 1500 on all interfaces. > > > > On www.speedtest.net (which is IPv4-only), the download test works as > > expected (>150 Mbps), but the upload test fails (socket error). > > This works fine when using Go6Lab's public Jool NAT64 (or native IPv4). > > > > Maurice _______________________________________________ Jool-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail-lists.nic.mx/listas/listinfo/jool-list
