-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
routers apparently prefer fastd #175
Comments
A router that has a WG-connection and several wifi mesh partners seemed to have lost the connection to WG, although in the status page of the router, it shows still connected to the WG supernode. However, that router did not or could not use that WG-connection but instead routed via wifi mesh. What I tried is, disable wifi for 5 minutes via "wifi down ; sleep 300 ; wifi" in order to force the router to user the WG-connection instead of the wifi mesh way. Didn't work. Router was offline for 5 minutes. What helped, was a restart of WG with "ifdown vpn ; sleep 5 ; ifup vpn" |
Hi Bernd,
thanks for the description. I would like to collect some more information:
- When did this happen?
- How often do you observe this?
- Does wg connect to different supernodes when you run "ifdown vpn ; sleep
5 ; ifup vpn"? (The supernode should be chosen randomly here.)
- If it (randomly) picks the same supernode as before, is the problem still
existing then?
- Is this happening with all supernodes?
- Could you please check with "batctl n", if the node still sees a batman
neighbor on the "vx_vpn_wired" interface (in case of the error)?
…On Thu, 25 Feb, 2021, 20:41 Bernd Schittenhelm, ***@***.***> wrote:
A router that has a WG-connection and several wifi mesh partners seemed to
have lost the connection to WG although in the status page it shows still
connected. However, that router did not or could not use that WG-connection
but routed via wifi mesh.
What I tried is, disable wifi for 5 minutes via "wifi down ; sleep 300 ;
wifi" in order to force the router to user the WG-connection instead of the
wifi mesh way. Didn't work. Router was offline for 5 minutes.
What helped, was a restart of WG with "ifdown vpn ; sleep 5 ; ifup vpn"
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#175 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAESYQMXBKEIKRGUX5TS6YDTA2RV5ANCNFSM4YHCMHFQ>
.
|
I would have to wait for another occasion. |
I added a graph in the router dashboard in Grafana at the very bottom,
which shows the vpn neighbors.
https://stats.ffh.zone/d/000000021/router-fur-meshviewer?orgId=1
@bschelm: Can you have a look, whether the outages are visible there?
…On Fri, 26 Feb, 2021, 10:12 Bernd Schittenhelm, ***@***.***> wrote:
I would have to wait for another occasion.
It happened twice already.
I can't tell when it happened because the router, in that case, is still
online via mesh.
You see it only when you click on the router.
After restarting WG, it connected to a different SN.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#175 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAESYQN5X3ET33WRMVWTSETTA5QYFANCNFSM4YHCMHFQ>
.
|
Nope. |
@bschelm I added another graph to the dashboard. It's quite messy, so I selected some traces and posted a screenshot above. The selected traces contain rx TQ from and tx TQ to the supernodes. Are your outages correlated to the gaps in the graph? |
From all what I have heard, this doesn't happen very often. So let's start with our Infrastructure Freeze Week, and see whether it will occur again in that week. If it happens again, please do not "fix" it directly, but collect as many data as possible:
Hopefully this data will be enough to find the issue. |
I think, this is the same issue as #147 . |
Is this still an issue? |
We still have both WireGuard and fastd nodes and have not yet resolved the issue. |
Is there any setup, where we saw this recently?
CC: @bschelm?
Jan-Niklas Burfeind ***@***.***> schrieb am Mo., 17. Apr.
2023, 00:00:
… We still have both WireGuard and fastd nodes and have not yet resolved the
issue.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#175 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAESYQNM2VUIPELNLEAWY6TXBRTX5ANCNFSM4YHCMHFQ>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
@CodeFetch and @bschelm observed, routers tend to like connection via fastd, rather then wireguard.
@CodeFetch further found this to be connected to packetloss in wireguard.
We need statistics to back these theses up.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: