Indefinite queuing for unconnected peers (Was: problem wireguard + ospf + unconnected tunnels)
Roelf "rewbycraft" Wichertjes
mailings+wireguard at roelf.org
Sat Jul 8 20:51:59 CEST 2017
I can personally see there being use in both the getting sendto errors
but also in simply dropping the packets (depending on the software you
have communicating over wireguard). So rather than change it entirely, I
would suggest making that an option of some sort.
As an aside, a single interface producing sendto() failures shouldn't,
in my opinion, cause quagga's ospfd to refuse to operate on other
On 07/08/2017 04:21 PM, Baptiste Jonglez wrote:
> The current approach is to queue all outgoing packets for an indefinite
> amount of time when the peer is not connected or reachable.
> I think it does not make much sense, and leads to the kind of issue you
> mention here. The initial goal was probably to queue packets just long
> enough to be able to complete a handshake with the peer, which makes a lot
> of sense (it would be annoying to drop the first packet of any outgoing
> connection). But the handshake should not take more than hundreds of
> Maybe Wireguard should drop packets from this queue after a few seconds?
> Would it be hard to implement?
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 12:09:22AM +0300, ae wrote:
>> 2 tunnels
>> 1 normal - 2nd with unconnected ending
>> + ospfd quagge
>> At start everything works fine - but after ~ 30-60 seconds - the ospf stops working
>> This is due to the fact that the ospf daemon sends packets from the same socket on different interfaces - and in the tunnel interface everything goes fine - but in the 2nd packets accumulate
>> And after a certain accumulation - the socket of the demon daemon stops working on sending completely "No buffer space available "
>> Is it possible to fix this with settings?
>> WireGuard mailing list
>> WireGuard at lists.zx2c4.com
> WireGuard mailing list
> WireGuard at lists.zx2c4.com
More information about the WireGuard