Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Garbled apinger messages in the system log

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved IPv6
    14 Posts 4 Posters 13.7k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • jimpJ
      jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
      last edited by

      Is that on a standard 2.0 image or are you on the ipv6 code?

      Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

      Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

      Do not Chat/PM for help!

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • W
        wallabybob
        last edited by

        @jimp:

        Is that on a standard 2.0 image or are you on the ipv6 code?

        IPv6.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • jimpJ
          jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
          last edited by

          This may be a side effect of the ipv6 code. I haven't heard of that happening on a stock 2.0 image, and there are probably several places in the ipv6 where such a buglet may have slipped in. I moved the thread to the ipv6 board in case someone else there might have seen it.

          Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

          Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

          Do not Chat/PM for help!

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • D
            databeestje
            last edited by

            Not sure if this is related to the IPv6 code at all. Never seen it before though.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • W
              wallabybob
              last edited by

              @databeestje:

              Not sure if this is related to the IPv6 code at all. Never seen it before though.

              I thought since apinger was reporting the garbled message and the apinger application on my system is dated 2009 that it probably was more an apinger problem than a problem in the IPv6 mods. But maybe the IPv6 mods touch a file used by apinger in a way that causes confusion in apinger.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • W
                wallabybob
                last edited by

                Here are the current apinger configuration file and status file.

                It is perhaps curious that though there are 4 targets in the configuration file (SROUTE1 seemingly duplicating SROUTE0) there seem to be only 3 entries in the status file.

                more /var/etc/apinger.conf

                pfSense apinger configuration file. Automatically Generated!

                User and group the pinger should run as

                user "root"
                group "wheel"

                Mailer to use (default: "/usr/lib/sendmail -t")

                #mailer "/var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject"

                Location of the pid-file (default: "/var/run/apinger.pid")

                pid_file "/var/run/apinger.pid"

                Format of timestamp (%s macro) (default: "%b %d %H:%M:%S")

                #timestamp_format "%Y%m%d%H%M%S"

                status {
                       ## File where the status information whould be written to
                       file "/tmp/apinger.status"
                       ## Interval between file updates
                       ## when 0 or not set, file is written only when SIGUSR1 is received
                       interval 5s
                }

                ########################################

                RRDTool status gathering configuration

                Interval between RRD updates

                rrd interval 60s;

                These parameters can be overriden in a specific alarm configuration

                alarm default {
                       command on "/usr/local/sbin/pfSctl -c 'filter reload'"
                       command off "/usr/local/sbin/pfSctl -c 'filter reload'"
                       combine 10s
                }

                "Down" alarm definition.

                This alarm will be fired when target doesn't respond for 30 seconds.

                alarm down "down" {
                       time 10s
                }

                "Delay" alarm definition.

                This alarm will be fired when responses are delayed more than 200ms

                it will be canceled, when the delay drops below 100ms

                alarm delay "delay" {
                       delay_low 200ms
                       delay_high 500ms
                }

                "Loss" alarm definition.

                This alarm will be fired when packet loss goes over 20%

                it will be canceled, when the loss drops below 10%

                alarm loss "loss" {
                       percent_low 10
                       percent_high 20
                }

                target default {
                       ## How often the probe should be sent  
                       interval 1s
                       
                       ## How many replies should be used to compute average delay
                       ## for controlling "delay" alarms
                       avg_delay_samples 10
                       
                       ## How many probes should be used to compute average loss
                       avg_loss_samples 50

                ## The delay (in samples) after which loss is computed
                       ## without this delays larger than interval would be treated as loss
                       avg_loss_delay_samples 20

                ## Names of the alarms that may be generated for the target
                       alarms "down","delay","loss"

                ## Location of the RRD
                       #rrd file "/var/db/rrd/apinger-%t.rrd"
                }
                target "121.50.212.5" {
                       description "GW_WAN"
                       srcip "203.144.5.171"
                       alarms override "loss","delay","down";
                       rrd file "/var/db/rrd/GW_WAN-quality.rrd"
                }

                target "192.168.211.217" {
                       description "SROUTE0"
                       srcip "192.168.211.173"
                       alarms override "loss","delay","down";
                       rrd file "/var/db/rrd/SROUTE0-quality.rrd"
                }

                target "192.168.211.217" {
                       description "SROUTE1"
                       srcip "192.168.211.173"
                       alarms override "loss","delay","down";
                       rrd file "/var/db/rrd/SROUTE1-quality.rrd"
                }

                target "2001:470:1f04:14b3::1" {
                       description "HE_NET"
                       srcip "2001:470:1f04:14b3::2"
                       alarms override "loss","delay","down";
                       rrd file "/var/db/rrd/HE_NET-quality.rrd"
                }

                more /tmp/apinger.status

                sh<91><ed>|?

                <dd>?<bc>t<93>^X^DV<d6>?^_<85><eb>Q<b8>^^<d5>?'<ac>^\Z<e0>?ESC/</e0></ac></d5></b8></eb></d6></bc></dd>

                <dd>$^F<81><d5>?<d1>"<db><f9>~j<e0>?^Y^DV^N- <b2><d5>? <c5><b0>rh<91></b0></c5></d5></b2></e0></f9></db></d1></d5></dd>

                <dd>?|203.144.5.171|GW_WAN|56|55|1299819488|40.422ms||none
                192.168.211.217|192.168.211.173|SROUTE1|56|55|1299819488|0.473ms||none
                2001:470:1f04:14b3::1|2001:470:1f04:14b3::2|HE_NET|56|0|0|0.000ms||down
                #</dd></ed>

                I guess the two apinger targets seemingly the same are from two static routes: 192.168.217.0/24 and 192.168.51.0/24 are both accessible through 192.168.211.217.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • jimpJ
                  jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
                  last edited by

                  Looks like the entry with 203.144.5.171 is corrupt, that "sh …" stuff shouldn't be there. It should look like the other lines.

                  Side note: The timestamp is kept on some files even if their contents have been updated. It's unlikely that your apinger binary is really from 2009.

                  Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                  Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                  Do not Chat/PM for help!

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • D
                    databeestje
                    last edited by

                    Ok, that is a upgrade bug that exists in 2.0-RC1. When we originally wrote the static route upgrade code it appears we've forgotten to collapse the routes by target. This is a clear bug.

                    2 routes pointing to the same IP should always result in a single target. This was clearly a oversight.

                    Is this a install upgraded from 1.2.3 or is this a upgrade from a 2.0-RC or BETA install

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • W
                      wallabybob
                      last edited by

                      @databeestje:

                      Is this a install upgraded from 1.2.3 or is this a upgrade from a 2.0-RC or BETA install

                      Upgrade from 1.2.3 through various 2.0 BETA snapshot builds.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • D
                        databeestje
                        last edited by

                        Aha! That explains it

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • E
                          eri--
                          last edited by

                          Can you please provide the 1.2.3 config static route section?

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • D
                            databeestje
                            last edited by

                            Create a 1.2.3 vm, create 2 routes to a lan IP. Upgrade that and it should trigger it

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • First post
                              Last post
                            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.