Ask Your Question
0

PR2 unable to use wired connection

asked 2013-10-25 09:02:16 -0500

vhwanger gravatar image

updated 2014-11-22 17:05:43 -0500

ngrennan gravatar image

After an upgrade to Groovy, our PR2 doesn't seem to be using the wired network. Looking at the
/var/log/roam/console-output.log file, I see (with timestamps removed)

 validate_common returned False
 Discarding packet based on xid: 2742288446 != 11612
 validate_common returned False
 Discarding packet based on xid: 2742288446 != 11612
 validate_common returned False

 Fri Oct 25 11:59:11 2013 1382727551.35
 # 0      ddwrt     0.0  99.999  99.999             Wired  99.998 100 rule   active
 # 1    bs@lan1     0.0    -inf    -inf             Wired   0.000 100 norule active
 # 2       wan0     0.0    -inf    -inf             Wired  -1.000  -1 norule active
 [  INFO ] : State machine transitioning 'SELECT':'fail'-->'ERROR'

 Fri Oct 25 11:59:12 2013 1382727552.35
 # 0      ddwrt     0.0  99.998  99.998             Wired  99.997 100 rule   active
 # 1    bs@lan1     0.0    -inf    -inf             Wired   0.000 100 norule active
 # 2       wan0     0.0    -inf    -inf             Wired  -1.000  -1 norule active
- Base station address is 192.168.1.142:1194

 Fri Oct 25 11:59:13 2013 1382727553.35
 # 0      ddwrt     0.0  99.998  99.998             Wired  99.997 100 rule   active
 # 1    bs@lan1     0.0    -inf    -inf             Wired   0.000 100 norule active
 # 2       wan0     0.0    -inf    -inf             Wired  -1.000  -1 norule active

 Fri Oct 25 11:59:14 2013 1382727554.35
 # 0      ddwrt     0.0  99.999  99.999             Wired  99.997 100 rule   active
 # 1    bs@lan1     0.0    -inf    -inf             Wired   0.000 100 norule active
 # 2       wan0     0.0    -inf    -inf             Wired  -1.000  -1 norule active
- Base station address is 192.168.1.142:1194

 Fri Oct 25 11:59:15 2013 1382727555.35
 # 0      ddwrt     0.0  94.999  94.999             Wired  89.998 100 rule   active
 # 1    bs@lan1     0.0    -inf    -inf             Wired   0.000 100 norule active
 # 2       wan0     0.0    -inf    -inf             Wired  -1.000  -1 norule active

 Fri Oct 25 11:59:16 2013 1382727556.35
 # 0      ddwrt     0.0  99.999  99.999             Wired  99.998 100 rule   active
 # 1    bs@lan1     0.0    -inf    -inf             Wired   0.000 100 norule active
 # 2       wan0     0.0    -inf    -inf             Wired  -1.000  -1 norule active
 [  INFO ] : State machine transitioning 'ERROR':'done'-->'INIT'
 [  INFO ] : State machine transitioning 'INIT':'done'-->'SELECT'

 Fri Oct 25 11:59:17 2013 1382727557.35
 # 0      ddwrt     0.0  99.998  99.998             Wired  99.997 100 rule   active
 # 1    bs@lan1     0.0    -inf    -inf             Wired   0.000 100 norule active
 # 2       wan0     0.0    -inf    -inf             Wired  -1.000  -1 norule active

 Fri Oct 25 11:59:18 2013 1382727558.35
 # 0      ddwrt     0.0  99.999  99.999             Wired  99.998 100 rule   active
 # 1    bs@lan1     0.0    -inf    -inf             Wired   0.000 100 norule active
 # 2       wan0     0.0    -inf    -inf             Wired  -1.000  -1 norule active
 Discarding packet based on xid: 17313 != 52692
 validate_common returned False
 Discarding packet based on xid: 17313 != 52692
 validate_common returned False
 [  INFO ] : State machine transitioning ...
(more)
edit retag flag offensive close merge delete

Comments

Since this isn't actually ROS related, you might do better with the pr2-admins mailing list.

Dan Lazewatsky gravatar imageDan Lazewatsky ( 2013-10-25 12:57:05 -0500 )edit

1 Answer

Sort by ยป oldest newest most voted
2

answered 2013-12-09 21:57:29 -0500

ahendrix gravatar image

updated 2013-12-19 04:55:48 -0500

I'm not used to seeing this error in the logs:

 Discarding packet based on xid: 17313 != 52692
 validate_common returned False
 Discarding packet based on xid: 17313 != 52692
 validate_common returned False

It looks like your DHCP server isn't sending DHCP responses with the proper XID. The relevant error message is coming from line 260 of multi_interface_roam/src/multi_interface_roam/dhcp.py

You'll probably want to get in touch with your network administrator so see if they have any insight into this.

EDIT1:

I would do a packet dump on wan0 and try to trace the DHCP negotiation that's going on, to see if it's getting corrupt or out of sync somehow; paying particular attention to the XID field in the DHCP packets. Something like the following tcpdump command should be a start:

sudo tcpdump -i wan0 -s 1500 -vvv port bootps or port bootpc

If multi_interface_roam is taking the interface up and down, that may disrupt tcpdump. In that case, you'll have to play with the interface parameter. Maybe try -i any or look into the packet tap interface options.

It may also be worth doing the same packet dump on your DHCP server, and possibly the DHCP relay if you have one in your network, to see if they're processing DHCP requests properly. It's probably also worth looking at the DHCP logs if you can get to them.

EDIT2:

This turned out to be a non-confirming DHCP server that wasn't replying with the transaction ID (XID) that the client sent. I guess most clients don't care about this, but the PR2's DHCP implementation seems to.

We fixed it by giving the wan port on the PR2 a static IP address by doing the following:

In /etc/network/interfaces

auto wan0
iface wan0 inet static
  address 10.0.0.42
  netmask 255.255.255.0
  gateway 10.0.0.1

And in /etc/sysros/wifi/pr2.yaml

redirect_console: True
wireless_namespace: 'ddwrt'
wpa_config: "/etc/sysros/wifi/networks.conf" 
base_station: "basestation-novpn"
ping_port: 1194
tunnel_interface: 'tun9'
local_networks: [ '10.68.0.0/24', '10.69.0.0/24' ]
reliability_threshold: 50

interfaces:
  "basestation-novpn@wan0": { type: static, name: bs@wan0,  priority: 20 }
  "basestation-local2@lan1": { type: static, name: bs@lan1, priority: 30 }
  "wifi-router@lan0": { type: static, name: ddwrt }
# Uncomment these to make enable dual ralinks:
#  wlan0: { type: wireless }
#  wlan1: { type: wireless }
edit flag offensive delete link more

Comments

Unfortunately, I also double as the network admin. Might this have to do with us not using the network boot for the base station? We filed a ticket, but it has gone unattended to.

vhwanger gravatar imagevhwanger ( 2013-12-10 04:03:21 -0500 )edit

Your Answer

Please start posting anonymously - your entry will be published after you log in or create a new account.

Add Answer

Question Tools

1 follower

Stats

Asked: 2013-10-25 09:02:16 -0500

Seen: 315 times

Last updated: Dec 19 '13