Hi Allan,
we tried to check name table entry for tipc node <1.1.1> for name space
{x,655370, 655370}, but did not get any entry for node 1.1.1.
Apart from looking for TIPC name for <1.1.1> node, we saw some issues with name
table entries for a application with Type "x"
Before the application was reseted we had following entry for TIPC name
{x,655370, 655370}
Type Lower Upper Port Identity
Publication
------------ ----------------- ------------- --------------------
-----------
x 655370 655370 <1.1.5:520257525> 520257526
After resting the application with type id "x", we had two entries.
Type Lower Upper Port Identity
Publication
------------ ----------------- ------------- --------------------
-----------
x 655370 655370 <1.1.5:2219147253>
2219147254
<1.1.5:520257525>
520257526
it seems that 520257525, port entry still retained in name table.
Is this the issue with the application that subscribes to TIPC or is it the
issues with TIPC name table populating Mechanism?
Thanks,
Jitendra
----- Original Message ----
From: "Stephens, Allan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: jitendra kolhe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:40:09 AM
Subject: RE: [tipc-discussion] TIPC Messages are Sometimes beingmis-directed to
the wrong TIPC destport
Hi Jitendra:
Your name table output indicates that some nodes in the TIPC network
think that node <1.1.5> has 2 TIPC ports with the same name, which would
explain why some of the messages are being sent to one port and some to
the other (i.e. TIPC will direct unicast messages to these two
destinations in a round-robin manner, even if they are being sent by the
same sender). If this is not what you expect to see, then we need to
figure out if there is a problem with the info in the name table.
The first step would be to dump the name table output for both node
<1.1.1> and node <1.1.5>, and then compare their entries for the TIPC
name {x,655370}. If the table for node <1.1.1> shows two publications
from node <1.1.5> for that name, but the table for node <1.1.5> shows
only one publication, this would explain why node <1.1.1> is sending
messages to a non-existent TIPC port. We would then have to try and
determine why the name table on node <1.1.1> had incorrect information
...
Regards,
Al
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jitendra kolhe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 7:08 PM
> To: Stephens, Allan; tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [tipc-discussion] TIPC Messages are Sometimes
> beingmis-directed to the wrong TIPC destport
>
> Hi Allan,
> Thanks for the reply,
> I have got the name table entry when this issue was seen. here it is
> root> tipc-config -nt |grep 1.1.5
> 553707482 10240 10240
> <1.1.5:2228833412> 2228833413
>
> <1.1.5:520270085> 520270086
> 655370 655370
> <1.1.5:2219147253> 2219147254
>
> <1.1.5:520257525> 520257526
> 2181056512 2181056512
> <1.1.9:2560015065> 2560015067
> 10240 10240
> <1.1.5:2227425003> 2227425004
>
> <1.1.5:520257378> 520257379
> 10240 10240
> <1.1.5:2227424980> 2227424981
>
> <1.1.5:520257358> 520257359
> It seems that both ports : 1f02 7ff5 -------------- 520257525
> 8445 7ff5
> ------------ 2219147253 are availabe in the name table, what
> I understand (please correct me if I am wrong) is these are
> not multicast messages.
> It seems that some times previous port values are retained
> even after re-starting tipc application.
> I am not sure if this could happen.
> Thanks
> Jitendra
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "Stephens, Allan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: jitendra kolhe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 9:50:05 AM
> Subject: RE: [tipc-discussion] TIPC Messages are Sometimes
> beingmis-directed to the wrong TIPC destport
>
>
> Hi there:
>
> On initial inspection, I can't see a clear indication of a
> problem. The two messages you dumped both appear to be valid
> connectionless messages that are being sent to TIPC port name
> {285213679, 655370}; the first message has been mapped to
> port ID <1.1.5:520257525>, while the second was mapped to
> <1.1.5:221914753>.
>
> This sort of multiple mapping will happen in TIPC if you have
> bound the same TIPC name to two or more sockets; TIPC will
> distribute the traffic between the destination ports on a
> round-robin basis. However, the fact that the two
> destination port reference values are identical in their
> lower 16 bits (i.e. xxxx7ff5) makes me suspect that the upper
> 16 bits of the destination port field of the message header
> have become corrupted somehow.
>
> So my advice to you is: a) print out TIPC's name table to
> ensure that you don't have multiple instances of the TIPC
> port name you're trying to send to, then b) upgrade your
> setup to use TIPC 1.5.12 to see if that makes any difference.
> (The TIPC change history doesn't indicate that any fixes
> were made that would address your problem, but it's normally
> a good idea to run the latest version of TIPC just to be safe.)
>
> Regards,
> Al
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of
> > > jitendra kolhe
> > > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 4:00 PM
> > > To: tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
> > > Subject: Re: [tipc-discussion] TIPC Messages are Sometimes
> > > beingmis-directed to the wrong TIPC destport
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I am verynew to TIPC, I had been thru user-guide but I am
> > not sure if
> > > this is a TIPC KLM, issue or some user application that
> > uses TIPC. We
> > > sometimes see TIPC packets are being mis-directed to wrong
> > dest port.
> > > Can anyone help us to Identify the issue out here.
> > >
> > > Here is a hex dump of TIPC messages.
> > > Correct Message,
> > > 0x0000: 4148 0316 4008 0000 10f1 110a 0100 1001
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 0x0010: e4d3 ab8c 1f02 7ff5 0100 1001 0100 1005
> > > ................
> > > 0x0020: 1100 03ef 000a 000a 0100 1001 e4d3 ab27
> > > ...............'
> > > 0x0030: ffff ffff ffff ffff 0000 0000 0000 1acf
> > > ................
> > > 0x0040: ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff
> > > ................
> > > 0x0050: ffff
> > > The destport here is HEX 1f02 7ff5 which translates to TIPC
> > > destport=520257525.
> > > Incorrect Message
> > > 0x0000: 4148 0316 4008 0000 10f7 1111 0100 1001
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 0x0010: e4d3 ab8c 8445 7ff5 0100 1001 0100 1005
> > > .....E..........
> > > 0x0020: 1100 03ef 000a 000a 0100 1001 e4d3 ab27
> > > ...............'
> > > 0x0030: ffff ffff ffff ffff 0000 0000 0000 1ad6
> > > ................
> > > 0x0040: ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff
> > > ................
> > > 0x0050: ffff
> > > which has a destport of HEX 8445 7ff5, which translates to TIPC
> > > destport=2219147253.
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > ______________________
> > > Got a little couch potato?
> > > Check out fun summer activities for kids.
> > > http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activit
> > > ies+for+kids&cs=bz
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -----------
> > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges.
> > > Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> > > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > tipc-discussion mailing list
> > > tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > ______________________
> > Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small
> Business gives you
> > all the tools to get online.
> > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
> >
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ______________________
> Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search
> that gives answers, not web links.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for
today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
tipc-discussion mailing list
tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion
