From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 10 11:19:42 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 262C5106566B; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:19:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from monthadar@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wy0-f182.google.com (mail-wy0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 873098FC14; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:19:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyf19 with SMTP id 19so1228303wyf.13 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 03:19:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=RbjwaemzGPnWQhOtabCanra8d8al3iZNFKHN/smK3+Y=; b=xAi2A/NxOsBiOWEJFcRmWmDVOQjPZTNh6nhGPZbpKFaIyGNlp5GfzS9dHBLxxwF21z WemocE7iVM+num5GQf5a+Pk+Ina5gtz3K05z+1ANe4Wu3iY+JaxAuM8Ac1BBmJoERSz3 x2ZUmRt1oWOheVlcIBdinEWD3sFJKQy7fEWM4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=uNRLMZ8hVwtT+fJ5MJmBoErwPgcKKZtme1kgN9TeHC/KnWJA6psTWoCMja4Hq870Iu z72IQlvP4tOOI/Vw8FAZC6C8CfpKc36oBc9Va4E9dLQx0p65sVM7qSrSnq/CuPv4ykAH pmxi1MtZ3e+dkNYr8fQUNvb/mGwv5uJ3dTTaI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.154.130 with SMTP id o2mr6203607wbw.137.1297336660615; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 03:17:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.134.137 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 03:17:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201102101209.19983.bschmidt@freebsd.org> References: <201102101119.07350.bschmidt@freebsd.org> <201102101209.19983.bschmidt@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:17:40 +0100 Message-ID: From: Monthadar Al Jaberi To: bschmidt@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 80211s HWMP problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:19:42 -0000 On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > On Thursday, February 10, 2011 11:42:05 Monthadar Al Jaberi wrote: >> Okej, I run all four scenarios: >> >> 0->2 OK, but the first "ping -c 1" got lost >> 1->3 OK, >> 2->0 OK, >> 3->1 FAIL, works after "ping -c 1" 1->2 >> >> looks like path is built correct in one way only? :S > > I have no clue about the mesh code.. but, that smells like there are a > few frames discard which are supposed to fill the ARP table. Can I talk > you into dumping frames on the interfaces to figure out where those > discards happen? please :) > >> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Bernhard Schmidt > wrote: >> > On Thursday, February 10, 2011 11:06:41 Monthadar Al Jaberi wrote: >> >> Hej, wanna check if anyone encountered this problem: >> >> I setup 4 mesh nodes in a link topology ( 0 <-> 1 <-> 2 <-> 3) >> >> >> >> But I cant ping from 3 to 0, or 0 to 3, without first ping between >> >> the nodes to fill the hwmp route tables. >> > >> > Pinging 0 -> 2, 1 -> 3, 2 -> 0 and 3 -> 1 on freshly started nodes >> > works though? >> > >> > -- >> > Bernhard > > -- > Bernhard > -- //Monthadar Al Jaberi