Forgot to mention: > That absolutely makes sense. Unfortunately the issues didn't go away > when I was running OpenWrt on actual hardware (an old consumer router > I had laying around). And #267 is specifically about virtual NICs, right?
Right. But #267 was only a symptom through which we catched sight of a much bigger problem with Jool's innards. It's entirely possible that there are other ways to trigger the bug. On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:31 AM Alberto Leiva <[email protected]> wrote: > > > That's exactly right. I know it would be better to run NAT64 on the router > > itself, but I don't have that option right now. > > I still haven't been able to get the packet to bounce correctly, but > I'm thinking that this little hack is the only thing that > significantly sets your experiment apart from most tests that we've > run in Jool's history. > > Also, I'm guessing that the reason why the clients' routing consists > only of a default route is because of DHCP? > > So I'm wondering whether Router *needs* to be this default route. > > What happens if you configure OpenWrt to be the default gateway of the > clients? My reasoning is that this would effectively delete the > "same-network"-ness of the bouncing as far as translation is > concerned. (Jool ignores traffic that's not headed to the pool6 > prefix, so traffic not meant to be translated would be routed > normally.) > > (I mean this as a workaround, not as a solution. Even if this proves > good enough for you, I still want to spot the real problem and patch > it properly.) > > > > On the other hand, I can offer releasing commit 89b3c109 as Jool 3.5.8 > > > right away*. > > > > That would be great. Not sure if it would solve this specific problem, but > > ruling out the offloading issue might simplify troubleshooting. > > Actually... never mind. > > I got my facts wrong; the #267 patch was not (and cannot be) merged > into 89b3c109's branch. > > Jool 3.5.8 would not solve this problem. > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:09 AM Maurice Walker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hello Alberto! > > > > > 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? > > > > That's exactly right. I know it would be better to run NAT64 on the router > > itself, but I don't have that option right now. > > > > > 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.) > > > > That works fine for me. On the router, I created a route for the NAT64 > > prefix via OpenWrt's LAN address. On OpenWrt I configured the router's > > LAN addresses as the default gateways (IPv6 + IPv4). Could have used > > link-local addresses, but chose GUAs for simplicity. > > > > > But I do want to let you know that *we might need to wait until next > > > week to see any progress*. I'm sorry. > > > > No worries, I'm really thankful that you're taking the time to look into > > this! > > > > > On the other hand, I can offer releasing commit 89b3c109 as Jool 3.5.8 > > > right away*. > > > > That would be great. Not sure if it would solve this specific problem, but > > ruling out the offloading issue might simplify troubleshooting. > > > > > I don't really know how long would it take for the > > > OpenWrt folk to mirror it once that's done. > > > > That might be an issue. It seems it took months for them to switch from > > 3.5.6 to 3.5.7. But I could try to contact them to speed things up. > > > > > 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. > > > > That absolutely makes sense. Unfortunately the issues didn't go away > > when I was running OpenWrt on actual hardware (an old consumer router > > I had laying around). And #267 is specifically about virtual NICs, right? > > > > > Just to confirm: Are offloads disabled? > > > > They are, using ethtool as explained in the Jool documentation. Here is > > OpenWrt's /etc/rc.local: > > > > ethtool --offload eth0 gro off > > ethtool --offload eth0 lro off > > insmod jool disabled=1 pool6=2001:db8:1:64::/96 > > jool --source-icmpv6-errors-better=on > > jool --enable > > > > > > Maurice _______________________________________________ Jool-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail-lists.nic.mx/listas/listinfo/jool-list
