thanks. what repo is it in? i have extras, extras-devel, and testing but the package manager and apt are both not able to find iptables or wireless tools. maybe they arent available for pr1.2 yet?
I'm currently running whatever kernel appears in the repos as the power management kernel, since installing the other kernel didnt work due to a unresolved dependancy (fiasco-flasher). starting the hotspot works noth from command.ine and gui, connecting from two debian lenny macgines as well, but it wont dhcp and filling weverything in via ifconfig on the laptops doesnt work either.
debugging steps?
(sorry for spelling and such, posting from my n900)
I'm currently running whatever kernel appears in the repos as the power management kernel, since installing the other kernel didnt work due to a unresolved dependancy (fiasco-flasher). starting the hotspot works noth from command.ine and gui, connecting from two debian lenny macgines as well, but it wont dhcp and filling weverything in via ifconfig on the laptops doesnt work either.
Works noth ? Is this "works not" or what ? post output for CLI backend start. post output of "uname -a"
Hi Folks!
I've been wondering about one thing: Was there a conscious decision not to avoid IP packet fragmentation?
IP packet fragmentation involves quite some overhead and to my experience there seem some bugs and providers blocking fragmented packets out in the wild creating spurious connectivity problems.
If not, I'd like to propose following the common practice of changing the TCPMSS, avoiding unnecessary fragmentation at least for TCP packets:
iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,RST SYN -j TCPMSS --clamp-mss-to-pmtu
(doesn't work right now on the N900, as the corresponding module seems to be missing in the power user kernel - maybe someone could add it? :P )
(For those who don't know what I'm talking about: look at the MTU of your wlan0 and gprs0 interface - the latter will probably be smaller - and consider this explanation of ip fragmentation in the context of tunnels : http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk82...800d6979.shtml )
I am still running PR1.1.1 and using the device productively, so when I can afford some time to play I will update and go to an enhanced kernel myself.
In dieser Stelle ein dickes Danke! an Tom Tanner für seine Arbeit am Kernel. (A big thank you to Tom Tanner for his work).
Hi Folks!
I've been wondering about one thing: Was there a conscious decision not to avoid IP packet fragmentation?
IP packet fragmentation involves quite some overhead and to my experience there seem some bugs and providers blocking fragmented packets out in the wild creating spurious connectivity problems.
No decision, initially focus was just getting it working somehow and then many features were left disabled, ask titan and the needed moduless will be in the power kernel and once that's done I can add the options to the hotspot backend script.
I am still running PR1.1.1 and using the device productively, so when I can afford some time to play I will update and go to an enhanced kernel myself.
In dieser Stelle ein dickes Danke! an Tom Tanner für seine Arbeit am Kernel. (A big thank you to Tom Tanner for his work).
I'm using 2.6.28.10power37 , and the iptables command fails. There's neither libipt_TCPMSS.so , nor xt_TCPMSS.so (think, I remember that there was a name change in recent kernels)
: