On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 08:20:21AM -0300, Guido Iribarren wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Guido Iribarren
> <guidoiribarren@buenosaireslibre.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> > This time it solved itself after some brief time (a minute) but the
> > symptoms were the same.
> > So I could catch some logs,
> > http://pastebin.com/MEENj94i
> >
> > sadly, i wasn't fast enough to get a live log from the node involved
> > in the inconsistency as you suggested, so the report might be pretty
> > useless.
> 
> from this particular node i ran previous report (colmena-casa) that
> was rebooted recently, L3 ping to all of the network had the same
> issue, (no replies for a minute or so) so i had the chance to
> "recreate" the situation several times.
> Turns out, a "batctl ll tt ; batctl l" on the nodes mentioned in the
> inconsistencies gave no output at all, so the previous pastebin report
> is in fact complete :P
> Looks like the inconsistency is being resolved locally between
> neighbours, without the need to contact the far end of the network
> (which is coherent with what's described in the wiki)

Exactly! If the neighbour has the needed information, the node can directly get
answered without bothering the real destination ;)

> 
> In any case, AFAIR previous ocurrences of the bug didn't resolve by
> themselves (in a reasonable amount of time) so what I'm looking at now
> might be perfectly normal behaviour? (tt tables take some time to
> propagate?)

Well, the log you posted is perfectly correct. You missed some OGMs, therefore
the node is asking for an update that he missed.

it would be interesting to run batctl ll tt; batctl l all the time on the node
that usually experiences the "problem". The log should be not so big, unless the
bug happens.

Cheers,


-- 
Antonio Quartulli

..each of us alone is worth nothing..
Ernesto "Che" Guevara