Reply
Thread Tools
Posts: 57 | Thanked: 39 times | Joined on Aug 2010
#231
Originally Posted by ioan View Post
Is it possible that the new Nat64D is eating battery more than LDPreloadNat64? Two days ago I installed the new Nat64D (nothing else changed on my phone) and now the battery is out in about one day.
I don't think nat64d should be using a significant amount of CPU time. You can check this by running:

cut -d" " -f14-17 /proc/`pgrep nat64d`/stat

This will show four numbers: User CPU, System CPU, Child Process User CPU, and Child Process System CPU. They are in units of 1/100th of a second.

You can also check to see how much traffic has gone through the nat64 process with:

/sbin/ifconfig nat64

I haven't personally noticed any difference in battery usage, but I'll have to compare a day's usage on ipv6 vs ipv4 in battery-eye.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to ddrown For This Useful Post:
Posts: 481 | Thanked: 190 times | Joined on Feb 2006 @ Salem, OR
#232
Originally Posted by ddrown View Post
cut -d" " -f14-17 /proc/`pgrep nat64d`/stat
This one returns: 33 214 3 0

Originally Posted by ddrown View Post
/sbin/ifconfig nat64
RX: 3.6 MiB, TX: 3.6 MiB

I suppose it's something else eating the battery not the nat64.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to ioan For This Useful Post:
Posts: 303 | Thanked: 146 times | Joined on Aug 2009
#233
I tested the new version, and it works great, I think Skype works well too, but no one on Skype when I tried to test it. However, I did hear the ringing stuff, so I am assuming everything works well.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to Radu For This Useful Post:
Posts: 1,141 | Thanked: 781 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Magical Unicorn Land
#234
Just came to say thanks for continuing to develop and maintain these packages. It works great and it's very easy.
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to stlpaul For This Useful Post:
Posts: 4,030 | Thanked: 1,633 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ nd usa
#235
Originally Posted by lemmyslender View Post
OK, installed new version, everything appears to work now (skype, sip, gtalk, TOR, GeePS)....
Would you or someone please drop a few lines about the installation? I am still with the original version. Thanks.

bun
 
Posts: 57 | Thanked: 39 times | Joined on Aug 2010
#236
Originally Posted by bunanson View Post
Would you or someone please drop a few lines about the installation? I am still with the original version. Thanks.

bun
If you installed the ld_preload package, use the uninstall instructions at: http://code.google.com/p/n900ipv6/wiki/LDPreloadNat64

After that, the install instructions are at: http://code.google.com/p/n900ipv6/wiki/Nat64D
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ddrown For This Useful Post:
Posts: 4,030 | Thanked: 1,633 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ nd usa
#237
 
Posts: 4 | Thanked: 3 times | Joined on Mar 2011
#238
I've had my N900 working great with IPv6 on T-Mobile for quite awhile, and have just recently been trying to tether my laptop to it, but haven't had any luck. I run "ipv6-share start" on the N900, and then "dhcpcd usb0" on the laptop, and this is what I get:

dhcpcd: version 5.2.2 starting
dhcpcd: usb0: checking for 169.254.208.219
dhcpcd: usb0: using IPv4LL address 169.254.208.219
dhcpcd: forking to background

Why is it giving me that address? I also have a valid IPv6 address, but no name servers in /etc/resolv.conf, so nothing gets resolved. I can ssh into the N900 using it's IPv6 address, but I can't connect to anything on the Internet by name, IPv4 address, or IPv6 address. Trying to ssh to an IPv6 address results in "Name or service not known" and trying to ssh to an IPv4 address results in "Network is unreachable".

According to whois.arin.net (using the whois command), the IPv4 address I'm getting is a link local address, and "Hosts obtain these addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP server cannot be found", but it's obviously finding the N900's DHCP server or it wouldn't be getting the correct IPv6 address (from T-Mobile's 2607:fb90:: block).

Looking at the ipv6-share script, it looks like I should be getting an address between 10.255.255.10 and 10.255.255.100, so why am I getting that link local address instead?
 
Posts: 57 | Thanked: 39 times | Joined on Aug 2010
#239
Originally Posted by unicorn View Post
Looking at the ipv6-share script, it looks like I should be getting an address between 10.255.255.10 and 10.255.255.100, so why am I getting that link local address instead?
Are you using the libnat64 library? If you are, I recommend you switch to the nat64d package. libnat64 breaks dnsmasq's dhcp server. Additionally, using the nat64d package means that regular ipv4 traffic will work on your laptop.

You are getting a link-local address because dhcp clients will configure that first to request the address from the dhcp server. For my scripts, DNS settings come from DHCP. IPv6 addresses come from radvd. So it sounds like you're not getting any DHCP responses at all, only radvd announcements.

I also cleaned up the scripts for connection sharing:
http://code.google.com/p/n900ipv6/source/browse/share

Following the README in the usb directory will set the n900 up to automatically share when you're connected via 3g/2g and plug it into a usb device.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to ddrown For This Useful Post:
Posts: 4 | Thanked: 3 times | Joined on Mar 2011
#240
No, I'm not using libnat64. I'm using nat64d. I just installed your new scripts, which at first seemed to give me the same results (same output from the dhcpcd command), but running ifconfig shows that, in spite of what dhcpcd said, it didn't actually use that link local address, and actually gave me 10.255.255.157 instead, and I'm now able to use the 3G connection from my laptop. Thanks.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to unicorn For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
ipv6s, tmobile


 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:48.