Jakob, I’m a “computer guy” but have never posted on this forum before. I think you are asking me to post the .xml files? Wouldn’t that compromise our network by giving all the IDs? Can I private message it, instead? Does this forum have that? Thanks!
The XML files, yes. You can redact the last couple of character groups in each ID you like. I don’t take support PMs, but maybe someone else does.
I understand about the PM. I did as suggested and took off the last three groups of identifiers.
Thanks again!!!
You can see the this is only 2 devices config files. “Me” and “Remote” You can see that the remote has pending invitations and one is from “Me” even though I never requested the connection. I did not choose “ignore” so that I could troubleshoot it further.
Here’s the files:
config - ME - VZPJ4BD - Edit.xml (17.0 KB)
config - REMOTE - ZEIA7UH - Edit.xml (5.9 KB)
As I reviewed the XML file, I see that the remote PC has “pendingDevice” and my PC is listed even though I am sure I did not do a request (and do not have a current request).
Is it possible that someone turned ON introducer and the requests went out. Then they turned introducer off, but the requests stayed “pending”? (Are they "sticky?) Just an idea.
Also, I am continually being requested by that whole “ignore” group in my config file. I am rejecting them, but I am sure this is all a single cause from a single event. It started about the same time everywhere.
Thanks for the help today!
So the addresses where these connections are coming from are not yours, but the IDs are yours?
All of the devices are out on cell networks. So I am assuming those addresses are NAT or proxy addresses as they access the internet. That is what I mean when I say “not our addresses”. This is not the IP address that shows up on the PC itself. Does that make sense?
Yes, the IDs are all a match for our devices.
And if you check one of those devices, is the device id of the device you are seeing the connections on have that device added?
If yes, then thats the cause. How it got to that state, I have no idea.
No. That’s the mystery. Neither device is listed on each other’s list. I have attached the config files showing 1 example. See above.
I have no idea.
In the configs you posted, there is definitely a case where a device is added on one side but ignores on the other.
Another possibility that hasn’t been mentioned: There seem to be global IPs active and you have global discovery enabled: If multiple devices have the same global IP and listening port (22000 by default), e.g. devices B and C, it can happen that device A tries to contact device B, but the request ends up at device C thus triggering the connection request.
Is this true? Are the global IPs really doing that? I understood that the global IPs were used to help different devices find each other. Wouldn’t the request use their IDs, not IPs?
Actually, what you see is a pending request. This was not solicited by the other pair (which is the point of my question). The ignore on the other device is because it has been bombarded by requests from many devices on the network.
So hers a question, once a connection request is made, the receiver holds that request until the receiver decides accept-or-ignore. The request stays “sticky” at the receiver side. If I just don’t respond to the pop up, then it stays there indefinitely even after reboots, etc. Even if the sending requestor changes it’s mind and removes the request on the requestor’s side.
Earlier you did it couldn’t be an introducer, but now so am thinking that if a device is an introducer for 20 minutes and then the introducer feature is turned off. Any connection requests that occurred in that timeline would stay active on the receiver’s device until they make a response (accept or ignore). (Or edit the config file)
Yes and no, let me be more specific and say, that this is both untested, so I might be wrong, and it is not clear, whether it applies to your situation (however being bombarded by many request from the same network seems to make it likely):
Let devices B and C be in the same network, i.e. both have global IP 1. Let device A be in another network, so no local discovery. A and B have already added each other. When B and C announce to the global discovery server, it will determine their listening address to be 1:22000. Now if it happens (port forward, UPnP, …) that messages to 1:22000 get forwarded to C, once A queries the IP with B’s ID and sends a hello message, it ends up at C and is interpreted as a request for connection.
There is probably a few ways this could be mitigated, e.g. by adding a destination ID field to the hello message or having a separate message for device introduction.
True, and is the expected behaviour, as there is no way in the BEP to “unrequest” a connection.
What makes you think so?
Rusty, Audrius, Jakob, First I want to thank you for so much help and responsiveness!
We have successfully used this software for several years and contributed nothing, so I would like to “pay back” with anything I can do to improve the product. I will try any suggestions you have at this point. I think our system is interesting and possibly a good “test network” if there is something you would like to observe.
It is my opinion that the connection requests are now permanently in the config files. I will have the best result if I go to all 120 devices and edit their config files. (This is a difficult task as they are located in 120 different cities across the USA. We have occasional remote access.)
At this point, I am interested in any ideas you have for the “cause”. Since I do not want to fix all the config files and then have it “replicate” the problem again.
Thank you!!!
I mean there could be a ton of reasons here, from missconfigured peers, to an outright unlucky networking setup where two devices are behind the same NAT and one of them has port forwarding setup (others just announcing that they have port forwarding setup which sadly points to the original device), and others.
That’s the cost of trying hard to connect at whatever the cost, which partially involves a bit of guessing/brute force when trying to discover a device.
I can’t really say much else here, as all in all I am just going by what I am hearing. Jakob via his company Kastelo provides commercial support in case you want to pursue this further.
Audrius, Thanks again for the help. Much appreciated.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.