Re: [Babel-users] failing over faster?

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> A good question would be, what would the ideal time between tests be >> for the network to stablize? 3 minutes? At least in one series I'd >> started tests back to back, and didn't kick in the drop link

Re: [Babel-users] failing over faster?

> A good question would be, what would the ideal time between tests be > for the network to stablize? 3 minutes? At least in one series I'd > started tests back to back, and didn't kick in the drop link stuff at > the right times. SOURCE_GC_TIME is 200 hold time is 3.5 * update_interval so

Re: [Babel-users] failing over faster?

and in other news the odroid c2's current kernel, and the rpi3 and rpi2, now all do IPV6_SUBTREES correctly. ___ Babel-users mailing list Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users

Re: [Babel-users] failing over faster?

Tee-hee! Don't overanalyze yet!, that was not a strictly repeatable test, as yet. (if you want access to the testbed send me a ssh key) A good question would be, what would the ideal time between tests be for the network to stablize? 3 minutes? At least in one series I'd started tests back to

Re: [Babel-users] failing over faster?

> http://blog.cerowrt.org/post/failing_over_faster/ Why does the first stream fail at time 120? Broken firewall? There's something wrong in the second stream -- you're falling back in 30s, which is a tad high. Can i please see your babeld.conf? -- Juliusz

Re: [Babel-users] failing over faster?

> http://blog.cerowrt.org/post/failing_over_faster/ Nice. Could you please add a caption to the figures, and link the tags to the images (I know, I can get the full-size figures by opening the target of the tag). -- Juliusz ___ Babel-users mailing

Re: [Babel-users] failing over faster?

Thank ghu we aren't homenet! Wires are dead! :) I will incorporate your comments later today. Until then, there's pictures and data now up at: http://blog.cerowrt.org/post/failing_over_faster/ I am quite puzzled as to how long it takes to fail over even in the good cases. I guess I gotta take

Re: [Babel-users] failing over faster?

> 8+ years ago, with ahcp and babel, and a network configured to use > that with a single static ip address on both the ethernet and wifi, I > could do that. My own networks were setup that way, anyway... I did it > all the time. It was wonderful. I never had to think about it. Dave, the plan is

Re: [Babel-users] failing over faster?

>> Babeld is already monitoring netlink messages (see funciton filter_netlink >> in kernel_netlink), but it looks like this mechanism is not working in >> your particular case. I'll try to reproduce the issue, but I don't own >> a Raspberry Pi. > Maybe the typical problem with IFF_UP and

Re: [Babel-users] failing over faster?

This ended up being a deeply philosophical digression into routing behaviors that I think I'll have to blog about, with pictures, to fully describe. What I want is a world of ubiquitous always-on connectivity[1] - where you can be at your desk with 20 connections nailed up, listening to an audio

Re: [Babel-users] failing over faster?

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7225888/how-can-i-monitor-the-nic-statusup-down-in-a-c-program-without-polling-the-ker > > Babeld is already monitoring netlink messages (see funciton filter_netlink >

Re: [Babel-users] failing over faster?

> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7225888/how-can-i-monitor-the-nic-statusup-down-in-a-c-program-without-polling-the-ker Babeld is already monitoring netlink messages (see funciton filter_netlink in kernel_netlink), but it looks like this mechanism is not working in your particular case. I'll

Re: [Babel-users] failing over faster?

groovy. I will try it as soon as I can This showed some potential for doing it faster than that: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7225888/how-can-i-monitor-the-nic-statusup-down-in-a-c-program-without-polling-the-ker On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek

Re: [Babel-users] failing over faster?

> # and we fail over in 32 seconds What happens if you apply the following patch? diff --git a/babeld.c b/babeld.c index 3127e72..0183b32 100644 --- a/babeld.c +++ b/babeld.c @@ -744,7 +744,7 @@ main(int argc, char **argv) if(timeval_compare(_interfaces_timeout, ) < 0) {

[Babel-users] failing over faster?

I am fiddling with a rasberry pi3 with a usb ethernet (making it a 100mbit router), the onboard wifi, and 2 usb wifi sticks... with all the interfaces up I do a ping over ethernet 64 bytes from 172.26.64.231: icmp_seq=56 ttl=63 time=1.45 ms 64 bytes from 172.26.64.231: icmp_seq=57 ttl=63