<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

To: Rod Boyce <rod_boyce,AT,stratexnet,DOT,com>
Subject: Re: Quake 3 with cipe
From: Richard Gregory <R.Gregory,AT,liverpool,DOT,ac,DOT,uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:19:12 +0000
Cc: cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de
In-reply-to: <A3240F62EF3C2749B1A25D3BC9548F41030970@ExchWENZ02.wenz.global.vpn>
References: <A3240F62EF3C2749B1A25D3BC9548F41030970@ExchWENZ02.wenz.global.vpn>

I can see (with iftop and tcpdump) that all the packets are Q3 related,
all udp going between the same Q3 remote/local ports.

Did some more testing and found this isn't strictly cipe related, cipe
is one instance that shows up the problem. Another is connecting to a
local Q3 game server on the lan, in this case there is also an excess of
packets. But, being local it makes no difference and had never been
noticed before.

So this got me thinking the Q3 application must see the path length and
assume it relates to the bandwidth capacity. Local and direct this
assumption works fine, but via cipe the path length seems much shorter
than it is.

So the questing is... which iptables options will allow me to simulate a
longer path length and still go via cipe? Tried:
iptables -t mangle .... --ttl-set 120
according to tcpdump the packets had been altered but this had no effect
on Q3. Maybe this really needs setting in both directions. Did notice
that --ttl-inc and --ttl-dec both inc'ed.

Also tried making a port forwarding chain that DNATs from a local port
to another local port, to another local port, to another local port, and
then to the remote end via cipe. No luck yet, finding iptables to be
very temperamental when it comes to options. Even a basic rule that says
'dnat a local address/port to a remote address/port' is proving tricky,
the rule is never fired.

I agree about cipe, have been using for a few months now and have had no
problems. It does what is expected and keeps doing it, all I ask of
software...

Thanks for your input,

Richard

+--                               --+
|    Computer Science, Room G34     |
|  http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~greg   |
| Electrical Engineering, Room ~104 |
+--                               --+

Rod Boyce wrote:
> All,
> 
> Are you sure these packets are CIPE related.  I have seen both XP and Win
> 2000 generate a large amount of DNS packets if set up incorrectly.  Let me
> see if I can remember the story.
> I set up a 2000 box and gave it a default gateway and DNS that was outside
> the lan.  I also added it to a domain that it had not connected to yet.
> After rebooting the box and logging in locally I noticed that transfers were
> going very slow and that I had a lot to DNS traffic. It appered to me that
> the 2000 machine was doing a DNS lookup for every pactet it received and
> because the DNS server was outside the lan this generated a lot of traffic 2
> to 3 times as I recall.  I solved the problem by removing the default
> gateway as I did not need the machine to connect to the internet at that
> time.  Once the machine logged on to the domain it settled down and started
> to work correctly.  I have seen similar behavour from XP machines as well.
> 
> Hope this helps I have been a very happy user of CIPE for a long time now it
> just runs they is nothing else I can say.
> 
> Rod
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Gregory [mailto:R.Gregory,AT,liverpool,DOT,ac,DOT,uk
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 12:39 AM
> To: Mark Smith; cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de
> Subject: Re: Quake 3 with cipe
> 
> 
> Yes tried that one and it works fine. 1:1 packet balance at 2-3K bytes 
> per second. Its only through cipe that this problem shows up, which is 
> why I came to the cipe list in search of an answer.
> 
> This is what it comes down to, with Q3 on XP (or 2K) *and* cipe, there 
> are 4* or more many packets going to the server as either without cipe 
> (direct) or with Q3 on Linux via cipe.   Strange stuff...
> 
> 
> Richard
> 
> +--                               --+
> |    Computer Science, Room G34     |
> |  http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~greg   |
> | Electrical Engineering, Room ~104 |
> +--                               --+
> 
> Mark Smith wrote:
> 
>>I'm sure it's probably obvious, but have you actually tried the same
>>configurations, but using a direct connection between client and server
>>rather than through CIPE, to prove that this specific problem isn't
>>something to do with your configuration?  If it's different then sure, it
>>might be CIPE.  If it's not, then I'd probably blame something inside Q3
>>itself.
>>
>>--
>>Mark Smith - Avco Systems Ltd
>>email: mark.smith,AT,avcosystems,DOT,co,DOT,uk
>>Tel: +44 (0)1784 430996 Fax: +44 (0)1784 431078
>>
>>
>>--
>>Message sent by the cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de mailing list.
>>Unsubscribe: mail majordomo,AT,inka,DOT,de, "unsubscribe cipe-l" in body
>>Other commands available with "help" in body to the same address.
>>CIPE info and list archive:
> 
> <URL:http://sites.inka.de/~bigred/devel/cipe.html>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Message sent by the cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de mailing list.
> Unsubscribe: mail majordomo,AT,inka,DOT,de, "unsubscribe cipe-l" in body
> Other commands available with "help" in body to the same address.
> CIPE info and list archive:
> <URL:http://sites.inka.de/~bigred/devel/cipe.html>
> 
> --
> Message sent by the cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de mailing list.
> Unsubscribe: mail majordomo,AT,inka,DOT,de, "unsubscribe cipe-l" in body
> Other commands available with "help" in body to the same address.
> CIPE info and list archive: 
> <URL:http://sites.inka.de/~bigred/devel/cipe.html>
> 


<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]