Hello all,

I am experiencing an issue only reported, after the upgrade of servers
to v2.4.4. It only happens on a few percentage of the users, and only
on a few locations :|, so far. And even to make things worst, it does
not even happen every time.

The issue, is that the server, sometimes, when a client is connecting
for a first time, keeps reporting the following:
Fri Dec  8 10:49:34 2017 us=532606 MrAnderson/2.2.2.2:49359 MULTI:
primary virtual IP for MrAnderson/2.2.2.2:49359: 100.120.128.3
Fri Dec  8 10:49:34 2017 us=532674 MrAnderson/2.2.2.2:49359 SENT
CONTROL [MrAnderson]: 'PUSH_REPLY,dhcp-option DNS
100.120.0.1,redirect-gateway def1,ping 9,ping-restart
30,explicit-exit-notify 1,route-gateway 100.120.128.1,topology
subnet,redirect-gateway def1,ifconfig-ipv6 2001:db8:123::2/64
2001:db8:123::1,route-ipv6 2000::/3
2001:db8:123::1,explicit-exit-notify 2,compress,ifconfig 100.120.128.3
255.255.252.0,peer-id 0,cipher AES-256-GCM' (status=1)
Fri Dec  8 10:49:34 2017 us=532783 MrAnderson/2.2.2.2:49359 MULTI:
modified fd 8, mask 32768
Fri Dec  8 10:49:34 2017 us=532831 MrAnderson/2.2.2.2:49359 UDPv4
WRITE [399] to [AF_INET]2.2.2.2:49359: P_CONTROL_V1 kid=0 [ ] pid=7
DATA len=385
Fri Dec  8 10:49:34 2017 us=594533 GET INST BY REAL: 2.2.2.2:49359 [ok]
Fri Dec  8 10:49:34 2017 us=594583 MrAnderson/2.2.2.2:49359 UDPv4 READ
[22] from [AF_INET]2.2.2.2:49359: P_ACK_V1 kid=0 [ 7 ]
Fri Dec  8 10:49:34 2017 us=594690 GET INST BY REAL: 2.2.2.2:49359 [ok]
Fri Dec  8 10:49:34 2017 us=594718 MrAnderson/2.2.2.2:49359 UDPv4 READ
[73] from [AF_INET]2.2.2.2:49359: P_DATA_V2 kid=0 DATA len=72
Fri Dec  8 10:49:34 2017 us=594733 MrAnderson/2.2.2.2:49359 Key
[AF_INET]2.2.2.2:49359 [0] not initialized (yet), dropping packet.
Fri Dec  8 10:49:34 2017 us=594757 GET INST BY REAL: 2.2.2.2:49359 [ok]
Fri Dec  8 10:49:34 2017 us=594785 MrAnderson/2.2.2.2:49359 UDPv4 READ
[96] from [AF_INET]2.2.2.2:49359: P_DATA_V2 kid=0 DATA len=95
Fri Dec  8 10:49:34 2017 us=594803 MrAnderson/2.2.2.2:49359 Key
[AF_INET]2.2.2.2:49359 [0] not initialized (yet), dropping packet.
Fri Dec  8 10:49:34 2017 us=594825 GET INST BY REAL: 2.2.2.2:49359 [ok]
Fri Dec  8 10:49:34 2017 us=594841 MrAnderson/2.2.2.2:49359 UDPv4 READ
[77] from [AF_INET]2.2.2.2:49359: P_DATA_V2 kid=0 DATA len=76
Fri Dec  8 10:49:34 2017 us=594854 MrAnderson/2.2.2.2:49359 Key
[AF_INET]2.2.2.2:49359 [0] not initialized (yet), dropping packet.
Fri Dec  8 10:49:34 2017 us=606809 GET INST BY REAL: 2.2.2.2:49359 [ok]
Fri Dec  8 10:49:34 2017 us=606856 MrAnderson/2.2.2.2:49359 UDPv4 READ
[77] from [AF_INET]2.2.2.2:49359: P_DATA_V2 kid=0 DATA len=76
Fri Dec  8 10:49:34 2017 us=606872 MrAnderson/2.2.2.2:49359 Key
[AF_INET]2.2.2.2:49359 [0] not initialized (yet), dropping packet.
Fri Dec  8 10:49:34 2017 us=611257 GET INST BY REAL: 2.2.2.2:49359 [ok]
(Real IP and username replaced)

So, since the keys appear not to be initialized, there is no
communication from the server to the client, and eventually, the
ping-timeout occurs. When that happens, there is a reconnection, and
everything works as expected including the key definition.

I can pretty much replicate this, with the help of some colleagues.
What we were able to find out too, is that this issue does not occur,
if the option --ncp-disable is set on the client's config file.

I've already searched through the bug report database, and found
nothing to support this behaviour.
Has anyone stumble upon this issue?

Both client and server are v2.4.4.

I have the entire log with "verb 7", on both client and server when
the issue occurred, if someone thinks if it is of any interest, but
are some very long logs.
I can also fill a bug report, if needed.

Thank you for you time.
Cheers,
-- 
Rui Santos
Veni, Vidi, Linux

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Openvpn-users mailing list
Openvpn-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users

Reply via email to