Re: [Babel-users] [Cerowrt-devel] switching cerowrt to quagga-babeld issues
On 07/03/2012 09:18 AM, Dave Taht wrote: On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Denis Ovsienko infrastat...@yandex.ru wrote: Does anybody know where this difference comes from? The difference comes from NetworkManager. Its efforts in reproducing high-metric RTPROT_KERNEL routes with low-metric RTPROT_STATIC ones are effectively hiding the kernel issue outside of CeroWrt runtime. Would it be better to add a watchdog shell script, which does the same, or patch the kernel? I would *much rather* patch the kernel than have a watchdog. However I don't quite understand the redistribution issue vs a vs ipv6 here. If I have a redistribute kernel on for ipv4, it does propagate the default route. (I note that I dislike network manager too as it tries too hard to work around bugs in the base OS and my own view of the world is far more meshy) I'll gladly try pushing a patch up to the mainline if that's what is needed. Hey, guys: if NM has a problem, let Dan Williams know, rather than just removing NM and flaming about NM. Dan's a nice guy, and works hard to make NM work well, and it's a nearly impossible task. And as far as him trying to work around problems, I remember him discovering that most 802.11 drivers not setting the time when they saw announcements properly, and then going and patching as many drivers as he could lay his hands on... (having lost half his hair figuring out why people were associating with the wrong AP after resume) So he has given at the blood bank fixing the kernel. - Jim ___ Babel-users mailing list Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
Re: [Babel-users] [Cerowrt-devel] switching cerowrt to quagga-babeld issues
Does anybody know where this difference comes from? The difference comes from NetworkManager. Its efforts in reproducing high-metric RTPROT_KERNEL routes with low-metric RTPROT_STATIC ones are effectively hiding the kernel issue outside of CeroWrt runtime. Would it be better to add a watchdog shell script, which does the same, or patch the kernel? -- Denis Ovsienko ___ Babel-users mailing list Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
Re: [Babel-users] [Cerowrt-devel] switching cerowrt to quagga-babeld issues
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 04:35:10PM +0400, Denis Ovsienko wrote: Does anybody know where this difference comes from? The difference comes from NetworkManager. […] Would it be better to add a watchdog shell script, which does the same, or patch the kernel? It would be better to remove NetworkManager ;-) -- Gabriel P.S. I do understand that it wouldn't solve the issue, just kidding. ___ Babel-users mailing list Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
Re: [Babel-users] [Cerowrt-devel] switching cerowrt to quagga-babeld issues
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Denis Ovsienko infrastat...@yandex.ru wrote: Does anybody know where this difference comes from? The difference comes from NetworkManager. Its efforts in reproducing high-metric RTPROT_KERNEL routes with low-metric RTPROT_STATIC ones are effectively hiding the kernel issue outside of CeroWrt runtime. Would it be better to add a watchdog shell script, which does the same, or patch the kernel? I would *much rather* patch the kernel than have a watchdog. However I don't quite understand the redistribution issue vs a vs ipv6 here. If I have a redistribute kernel on for ipv4, it does propagate the default route. (I note that I dislike network manager too as it tries too hard to work around bugs in the base OS and my own view of the world is far more meshy) I'll gladly try pushing a patch up to the mainline if that's what is needed. -- Denis Ovsienko ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list cerowrt-de...@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel -- Dave Täht http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki - 3.3.8-6 is out with fq_codel! ___ Babel-users mailing list Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
Re: [Babel-users] [Cerowrt-devel] switching cerowrt to quagga-babeld issues
On 03/07/12 13:35, Denis Ovsienko wrote: Does anybody know where this difference comes from? The difference comes from NetworkManager. Its efforts in reproducing high-metric RTPROT_KERNEL routes with low-metric RTPROT_STATIC ones are effectively hiding the kernel issue outside of CeroWrt runtime. Would it be better to add a watchdog shell script, which does the same, or patch the kernel? Isn't the main issue that IPv4 cannot autoconfigure routes? For IPv4, you *need* to set default routes either manually or via DHCP. In IPv6 this all tends to be done via RA announcements and autoconfiguration. In fact, I think the NetworkManager static route only comes from DHCPv6. I have a router here (WNR2000v2) that only handles 6to4 traffic and dishes out addresses via DHCPv6. To get proper conectivity, I also have a separate gogoc tunnel that is advertised only via RA packets. NetworkManager adds a static default route, but only for the 6to4 router. The gogc machine only gets a kernel-derived route. I cannot see that a kernel patch that reports kernel-derived routes as static would be accepted upstream. I think it is more likely that quagga will need patching to obtain the autoconfigured routes from the kernel somehow. -- Robert Bradley ___ Babel-users mailing list Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
Re: [Babel-users] [Cerowrt-devel] switching cerowrt to quagga-babeld issues
On 03/07/12 16:28, Robert Bradley wrote: In fact, I think the NetworkManager static route only comes from DHCPv6. I have a router here (WNR2000v2) that only handles 6to4 traffic and dishes out addresses via DHCPv6. To get proper conectivity, I also have a separate gogoc tunnel that is advertised only via RA packets. NetworkManager adds a static default route, but only for the 6to4 router. The gogc machine only gets a kernel-derived route. It looks like I spoke slightly too soon. If I disable the router's IPv6 support, NetworkManager reassigns the static route using the advertised gogoc tunnel. -- Robert Bradley ___ Babel-users mailing list Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
