Re: [PATCH 3/6] ofono: Old nameservers need to be cleared
Hi, On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 14:31 +0200, pasi.sjoh...@jolla.com wrote: > From: Pasi Sjöholm > > Nameservers need to be reset when new addresses are extracted > so that they are not reused when pdp-protocol e.g. changes > from ipv6 to dual/ipv4v6. Nameservers should be removed only when they change, which seems to be the task when the 'DomainNameServers' property. > --- > plugins/ofono.c | 4 > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/plugins/ofono.c b/plugins/ofono.c > index 1617764..29dfe90 100644 > --- a/plugins/ofono.c > +++ b/plugins/ofono.c > @@ -757,6 +757,8 @@ static void extract_ipv4_settings(DBusMessageIter *array, > > connman_ipaddress_free(context->ipv4_address); > context->ipv4_address = NULL; > + g_free(context->ipv4_nameservers); > + context->ipv4_nameservers = NULL; > context->index = -1; > > if (dbus_message_iter_get_arg_type(array) != DBUS_TYPE_ARRAY) > @@ -860,6 +862,8 @@ static void extract_ipv6_settings(DBusMessageIter *array, > > connman_ipaddress_free(context->ipv6_address); > context->ipv6_address = NULL; > + g_free(context->ipv6_nameservers); > + context->ipv6_nameservers = NULL; > context->index = -1; > > if (dbus_message_iter_get_arg_type(array) != DBUS_TYPE_ARRAY) At the start of both functions, nameservers is set to NULL. If the 'DomainNameServers' property is set in the message, the nameservers take the value supplied. At the end of both functions there are these two lines which appear to remove the old values from the context like so: g_free(context->ipv6_nameservers); context->ipv6_nameservers = nameservers; Are you sure the extra freeing is needed? Cheers, Patrik ___ connman mailing list connman@connman.net https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
RE: [PATCH 3/6] ofono: Old nameservers need to be cleared
Hi, >At the start of both functions, nameservers is set to NULL. If the >'DomainNameServers' property is set in the message, the nameservers take >the value supplied. At the end of both functions there are these two >lines which appear to remove the old values from the context like so: > > g_free(context->ipv6_nameservers); >context->ipv6_nameservers = nameservers; > >Are you sure the extra freeing is needed? I will modify it a bit so that the freeing is done only "if (address)" fails.. as the new addresses will come through dhcp/dhcpv6 in that case. Br, Pasi ___ connman mailing list connman@connman.net https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
Re: [PATCH 3/6] ofono: Old nameservers need to be cleared
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 13:51 +, Pasi Sjöholm wrote: > I will modify it a bit so that the freeing is done only "if (address)" > fails.. as the new addresses will come through dhcp/dhcpv6 in that > case. I think most of the problem solved by this patch set revolves around the problem that incomplete information is suddenly received from oFono. What is the minimum acceptable configuration from oFono? At least missing 'Address' and perhaps also 'Interface' property should ring alarm bells, is the whole setup faulty in this case? E.g. should most of the patches be fixed by a strategic check of if (index < 0 || !address || !...) goto out; after the dict has been processed? Cheers, Patrik ___ connman mailing list connman@connman.net https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
RE: [PATCH 3/6] ofono: Old nameservers need to be cleared
>I think most of the problem solved by this patch set revolves around the >problem that incomplete information is suddenly received from oFono. > >What is the minimum acceptable configuration from oFono? At least >missing 'Address' and perhaps also 'Interface' property should ring >alarm bells, is the whole setup faulty in this case? > >E.g. should most of the patches be fixed by a strategic check of > >if (index < 0 || !address || !...) > goto out; If ipv4_method is dhcp there will be no address, and neither there will an address with ipv6 when dual-mode (slaac & dhcpv6) is used. So we just can jump into conlusions.. Br, Pasi ___ connman mailing list connman@connman.net https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
Re: [PATCH 3/6] ofono: Old nameservers need to be cleared
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 14:10 +, Pasi Sjöholm wrote: > If ipv4_method is dhcp there will be no address, and neither there > will an address with ipv6 when dual-mode (slaac & dhcpv6) is used. > So we just can jump into conlusions.. So this all is about DHCP then...? Cheers, Patrik ___ connman mailing list connman@connman.net https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
RE: [PATCH 3/6] ofono: Old nameservers need to be cleared
>> If ipv4_method is dhcp there will be no address, and neither there >> will an address with ipv6 when dual-mode (slaac & dhcpv6) is used. >> So we just can jump into conlusions.. >So this all is about DHCP then...? and SLAAC.. which does not provide any method to configure the DNS-servers and we can/should not use the old values from any previous configuration/active context. Br, Pasi ___ connman mailing list connman@connman.net https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
Re: [PATCH 3/6] ofono: Old nameservers need to be cleared
Hi Pasi, On to, 2014-12-18 at 14:42 +, Pasi Sjöholm wrote: > >> If ipv4_method is dhcp there will be no address, and neither there > >> will an address with ipv6 when dual-mode (slaac & dhcpv6) is used. > >> So we just can jump into conlusions.. > >So this all is about DHCP then...? > > and SLAAC.. which does not provide any method to configure the DNS-servers > and we can/should not use the old values from any previous > configuration/active context. There is a RFC for it, see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6106 for details. Cheers, Jukka ___ connman mailing list connman@connman.net https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
Re: [PATCH 3/6] ofono: Old nameservers need to be cleared
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 14:10 +, Pasi Sjöholm wrote: > >I think most of the problem solved by this patch set revolves around the > >problem that incomplete information is suddenly received from oFono. > > > >What is the minimum acceptable configuration from oFono? At least > >missing 'Address' and perhaps also 'Interface' property should ring > >alarm bells, is the whole setup faulty in this case? > > > >E.g. should most of the patches be fixed by a strategic check of > > > >if (index < 0 || !address || !...) > > goto out; > > If ipv4_method is dhcp there will be no address, and neither there > will an address with ipv6 when dual-mode (slaac & dhcpv6) is used. > So we just can jump into conlusions.. Let's start from the basics. Please explain the following: - When there is an IPv4 only bearer, which are the possible IPv4 configuration methods? - When there is an IPv6 only bearer, which are the possible IPv6 configuration methodos? - When there is a dual IPv4/IPv6 bearer, which are the possible IPv4 and IPv6 configuration methods? This is important to understand, as I cannot make too much sense of the other patches otherwise. There can not be any "old" nameservers left hanging around, as the code goes like this: char *nameservers = NULL; ... while (...) ... g_free(context->ipv4_nameservers); context->ipv4_nameservers = nameservers; So if oFono provided no nameservers, they are unset after exiting this function as far as I can see. If oFono provided nameservers without giving an IP address, the nameservers are currently remembered. Once DHCP is run, any DHCP provided nameservers replace the old ones. If there are no nameservers available via DHCP, the best thing one can do is to keep the ones provided by oFono earlier with this message. If oFono is sending outdated information it is not supposed to send when no IP address is present (in the DHCP case, I assume), please fix oFono. Cheers, Patrik ___ connman mailing list connman@connman.net https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
RE: [PATCH 3/6] ofono: Old nameservers need to be cleared
>Let's start from the basics. Please explain the following: >- When there is an IPv4 only bearer, which are the possible IPv4 > configuration methods? CONNMAN_IPCONFIG_METHOD_FIXED CONNMAN_IPCONFIG_METHOD_DHCP >- When there is an IPv6 only bearer, which are the possible IPv6 > configuration methodos? CONNMAN_IPCONFIG_METHOD_FIXED CONNMAN_IPCONFIG_METHOD_AUTO (code supports it but I have not seen it happenning) >- When there is a dual IPv4/IPv6 bearer, which are the possible IPv4 > and IPv6 configuration methods? ipv4: CONNMAN_IPCONFIG_METHOD_FIXED CONNMAN_IPCONFIG_METHOD_DHCP ipv6 CONNMAN_IPCONFIG_METHOD_AUTO CONNMAN_IPCONFIG_METHOD_FIXED (supported by the code, but AUTO is the official way according to 3gpp) >There can not be any "old" nameservers left hanging around, as the code >goes like this: > >char *nameservers = NULL; >... >while (...) >... >g_free(context->ipv4_nameservers); >context->ipv4_nameservers = nameservers; >So if oFono provided no nameservers, they are unset after exiting this >function as far as I can see. >If oFono provided nameservers without giving an IP address, the >nameservers are currently remembered. Once DHCP is run, any DHCP >provided nameservers replace the old ones. If there are no nameservers >available via DHCP, the best thing one can do is to keep the ones >provided by oFono earlier with this message. What I've seen while testing this is that dhcpv6 does not replace the old nameservers when doing this: 1) First connect with ipv6-pdp and you will get nameservers 2001::1 and 2001::2 as fixed from ofono. 2) Disconnect and change the configuration from ofono to dual/ipv4v6. 3) Connect and query service from connman and you will see 2001::1 and 2001::2 plus slaac&dhcpv6 provided nameservers 2001::3 and 2001::4. With the patch applied, the nameservers at point 3 will be only the slaac&dhcpv6 provided 2001::3 and 2001::4. and yes, I have not had this happening with ipv4 because I have no sim from a operator which would use CONNMAN_IPCONFIG_METHOD_DHCP with ipv4 but for sure it happens with ipv6. >If oFono is sending >outdated information it is not supposed to send when no IP address is >present (in the DHCP case, I assume), please fix oFono. It is not ofono but connman using the outdated information. Br, Pasi ___ connman mailing list connman@connman.net https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
Re: [PATCH 3/6] ofono: Old nameservers need to be cleared
On Fri, 2014-12-19 at 10:12 +, Pasi Sjöholm wrote: > 3) Connect and query service from connman and you will see 2001::1 and > 2001::2 plus slaac&dhcpv6 provided nameservers 2001::3 and 2001::4. > > With the patch applied, the nameservers at point 3 will be only the > slaac&dhcpv6 provided 2001::3 and 2001::4. So what is the problem then of having nameservers 1, 2, 3 and 4 in use at the same time? Is it that: - 1 and 2 don't respond when connecting via DHCPv6/autoconfiguration? - the specification says 1 and 2 must not be used for whatever reason when 3 and 4 are provided by DHCPv6/autoconfiguration? And do we even care about that if 1 and 2 work anyway? If DHCPv6/autoconfiguration does not give any nameservers, the one pushed from oFono are suddenly really good to have... >It is not ofono but connman using the outdated information. The nameserver information is not "outdated" if it comes from the oFono plugin and the proper D-Bus message. If nameservers 1 and 2 are not supposed to be used with DHCPv6/autoconfiguration, then oFono should not be sending this information in the first place. It is not the responsibility of the application (== ConnMan) to interpret which parts of the message to use; all information provided by oFono will be exploited to the full extent possible. Cheers, Patrik ___ connman mailing list connman@connman.net https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
RE: [PATCH 3/6] ofono: Old nameservers need to be cleared
On Fri, 2014-12-19 at 10:12 +, Pasi Sjöholm wrote: >> 3) Connect and query service from connman and you will see 2001::1 and >> 2001::2 plus slaac&dhcpv6 provided nameservers 2001::3 and 2001::4. >> With the patch applied, the nameservers at point 3 will be only the >> slaac&dhcpv6 provided 2001::3 and 2001::4. >So what is the problem then of having nameservers 1, 2, 3 and 4 in use >at the same time? Is it that: >- 1 and 2 don't respond when connecting via DHCPv6/autoconfiguration? They might or might not depending on the configuration on the operators side. >- the specification says 1 and 2 must not be used for whatever reason > when 3 and 4 are provided by DHCPv6/autoconfiguration? I don't think there is such specification. :) They could even be the same as 1 and 2 depending on how they are presented. E.g. 2001:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 vs. 2001::1 (at least connman accepts both as valid configuration). > And do we even care about that if 1 and 2 work anyway? IMO, it is just that it is old configuration from non-active context which we should not keep around. Other thing which I have to consider is that those nameserver will be queried in any way and in a roaming case that means extra costs even it's small-minded but it is still costing for the end user. >If DHCPv6/autoconfiguration does not give any nameservers, the one >pushed from oFono are suddenly really good to have... Yes, especially in a case where the ipv4 dns-addresses are not provided. >It is not ofono but connman using the outdated information. >The nameserver information is not "outdated" if it comes from the oFono >plugin and the proper D-Bus message. If nameservers 1 and 2 are not >supposed to be used with DHCPv6/autoconfiguration, then oFono should not >be sending this information in the first place. It is the information from ipv6-pdp connection which has been disconnected, then the configuration has been changed in ofono to setup dual/ipv4v6 session instead. So it is outdated information from a previous session.. ofono will not maintain information about the previously sent nameservers and will not resend them. The nameservers 1/2 are not included in the new message received when the context is re-activated/connected after the pdp-type has been changed to dual/ipv4v6. >It is not the >responsibility of the application (== ConnMan) to interpret which parts >of the message to use; all information provided by oFono will be >exploited to the full extent possible. The main problem is that the configuration used is from a previous active context and not the current context. If you see the Patch 6/6 it works out the very same issue on interface ip-addresses/gateway-level.. if we do not set the method to _UNKNOWN the connman will use the old configuration values from previous contexts. Eg. connman would setup ipv6-address from previous context after user has changed the pdp-type from ipv6 to ip(v4). The only valid configuration is what ever is sent on each context-activation, and connman needs to drop the old configuration values. Br, Pasi ___ connman mailing list connman@connman.net https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
Re: [PATCH 3/6] ofono: Old nameservers need to be cleared
On Fri, 2014-12-19 at 11:25 +, Pasi Sjöholm wrote: > The nameservers 1/2 are not included in the new message received when > the context is re-activated/connected after the pdp-type has been > changed to dual/ipv4v6. At start: char *nameservers = NULL If and only if "DomainNameServers" is set: nameservers = extract_nameservers(&value) Independent of "DomainNameServers": g_free(context->ipv6_nameservers) context->ipv6_nameservers = nameservers At this point nameservers is NULL, if nothing was sent from oFono. At this point nameservers is non-NULL if oFono sent something. Looking once more at patch 3/6 makes it clear that the DHCPv6 case detected by address being NULL, avoids setting context nameservers altogether. The original code sets non-NULL nameservers only if they are supplied by the "DomainNameServers" property. Thus it is oFono that is sending supposedly "outdated" information while ConnMan believes whatever oFono tells it, "outdated" or not. If the information really is "outdated", oFono needs to be fixed. If the nameservers indeed are not attached to the message from oFono while ConnMan keeps on using them, some other part of the code needs fixing. Patch 3/6 may seem to work simply because some other patch in the series causes nameservers to be removed later on. This especially if all of them are tested at the same time. HTH, Patrik ___ connman mailing list connman@connman.net https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
RE: [PATCH 3/6] ofono: Old nameservers need to be cleared
Hi, >If the nameservers indeed are not attached to the message from oFono >while ConnMan keeps on using them, some other part of the code needs >fixing. Patch 3/6 may seem to work simply because some other patch in >the series causes nameservers to be removed later on. This especially if >all of them are tested at the same time. Nope, they are not removed anywhere else, the modem->context->ipv4_nameservers and ipv6 are not cleared after disconnection. They are only cleared if the context is completely removed. Sure I could move the freeing of the dns-servers to the set_disconnected(); but it is still the "same fix". Br, Pasi ___ connman mailing list connman@connman.net https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
Re: [PATCH 3/6] ofono: Old nameservers need to be cleared
On Fri, 2014-12-19 at 12:33 +, Pasi Sjöholm wrote: > Nope, they are not removed anywhere else, the > modem->context->ipv4_nameservers and ipv6 are not cleared after > disconnection. Sounds like disconnection part is where this needs to be fixed. Cheers, Patrik ___ connman mailing list connman@connman.net https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
RE: [PATCH 3/6] ofono: Old nameservers need to be cleared
>Sounds like disconnection part is where this needs to be fixed. Will update the patchset, and include following code to set_connected(): + if (!modem->context) + return; + + connman_ipaddress_free(modem->context->ipv4_address); + modem->context->ipv4_address = NULL; + modem->context->index = -1; + g_free(modem->context->ipv4_nameservers); + modem->context->ipv4_nameservers = NULL; + + connman_ipaddress_free(modem->context->ipv6_address); + modem->context->ipv6_address = NULL; + modem->context->index = -1; + g_free(modem->context->ipv6_nameservers); + modem->context->ipv6_nameservers = NULL; The ip-address freeing from extract_ipv4/6 should be part of set_disconnected() as well. Br, Pasi ___ connman mailing list connman@connman.net https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
Re: [PATCH 3/6] ofono: Old nameservers need to be cleared
Hi Pasi, > What I've seen while testing this is that dhcpv6 does not replace the old nameservers when doing this: 1) First connect with ipv6-pdp and you will get nameservers 2001::1 and 2001::2 as fixed from ofono. 2) Disconnect and change the configuration from ofono to dual/ipv4v6. 3) Connect and query service from connman and you will see 2001::1 and 2001::2 plus slaac&dhcpv6 provided nameservers 2001::3 and 2001::4. Maybe you should provide an ofono-monitor log (or similar) of what oFono actually sends? Since it is still unclear from this discussion whether the fault is with connman or oFono. Regards, -Denis ___ connman mailing list connman@connman.net https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
RE: [PATCH 3/6] ofono: Old nameservers need to be cleared
>> What I've seen while testing this is that dhcpv6 does not replace the old
>> nameservers when doing this:
>> 1) First connect with ipv6-pdp and you will get nameservers 2001::1 and
>> 2001::2 as fixed from ofono.
>> 2) Disconnect and change the configuration from ofono to dual/ipv4v6.
>> 3) Connect and query service from connman and you will see 2001::1 and
>> 2001::2 plus slaac&dhcpv6 provided nameservers 2001::3 and 2001::4.
>>
>Maybe you should provide an ofono-monitor log (or similar) of what oFono
>actually sends? Since it is still unclear from this discussion whether
>the fault is with connman or oFono.
If you insist.. (I've cutted pieces off from the ipv6-addresses) ;)
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Protocol = ip
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Settings = { Gateway = 10.233.105.246,
Address = 10.233.105.245, Method = static, Netmask = 255.255.255.0, Interface =
rmnet0, DomainNameServers = 62.241.198.245 62.241.198.246 }
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Active = True
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Settings = {}
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Active = False
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Protocol = ipv6
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] IPv6.Settings = { Gateway = 2001::1223,
Address = 2001::8a0f, Interface = rmnet0, DomainNameServers = 2001::0001
2001::0002 }
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Active = True
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] IPv6.Settings = {}
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Active = False
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Protocol = dual
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Settings = { Gateway = 10.233.105.246,
Address = 10.233.105.245, Method = static, Netmask = 255.255.255.0, Interface =
rmnet0, DomainNameServers = 62.241.198.245 62.241.198.246 }
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] IPv6.Settings = { Interface = rmnet0 }
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Active = True
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Settings = {}
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] IPv6.Settings = {}
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Active = False
___
connman mailing list
connman@connman.net
https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
Re: [PATCH 3/6] ofono: Old nameservers need to be cleared
Hi Pasi,
If you insist.. (I've cutted pieces off from the ipv6-addresses) ;)
It just readily makes things very clear, thanks for that.
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Protocol = ip
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Settings = { Gateway = 10.233.105.246,
Address = 10.233.105.245, Method = static, Netmask = 255.255.255.0, Interface =
rmnet0, DomainNameServers = 62.241.198.245 62.241.198.246 }
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Active = True
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Settings = {}
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Active = False
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Protocol = ipv6
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] IPv6.Settings = { Gateway = 2001::1223,
Address = 2001::8a0f, Interface = rmnet0, DomainNameServers = 2001::0001
2001::0002 }
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Active = True
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] IPv6.Settings = {}
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Active = False
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Protocol = dual
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Settings = { Gateway = 10.233.105.246,
Address = 10.233.105.245, Method = static, Netmask = 255.255.255.0, Interface =
rmnet0, DomainNameServers = 62.241.198.245 62.241.198.246 }
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] IPv6.Settings = { Interface = rmnet0 }
Interesting that in dual-mode the IPv6 settings are different than in
IPv6 only mode. Is this supposed to be this way?
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Active = True
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Settings = {}
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] IPv6.Settings = {}
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Active = False
Otherwise seems like oFono is doing everything just fine.
Regards,
-Denis
___
connman mailing list
connman@connman.net
https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
RE: [PATCH 3/6] ofono: Old nameservers need to be cleared
>> {ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Protocol = ipv6
>> {ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] IPv6.Settings = { Gateway =
>> 2001::1223, Address = 2001::8a0f, Interface = rmnet0, DomainNameServers =
>> 2001::0001 2001::0002 }
>> {ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Active = True
>> {ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] IPv6.Settings = {}
>> {ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Active = False
>>
>>
>> {ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Protocol = dual
>> {ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Settings = { Gateway = 10.233.105.246,
>> Address = 10.233.105.245, Method = static, Netmask = 255.255.255.0,
>> Interface = rmnet0, DomainNameServers = 62.241.198.245 62.241.198.246 }
>> {ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] IPv6.Settings = { Interface = rmnet0 }
>Interesting that in dual-mode the IPv6 settings are different than in
>IPv6 only mode. Is this supposed to be this way?
Yes, basicly slaac (+dhcpv6 for dns) is the only supported way of configuration
of ipv6-addresses in dual-mode (tried to find some documentation about plain
ipv6-pdp which would be available in public but did not succeed in 5mins).
Anyway, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6459
5.2 IPv6 Address Configuration
IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC), as specified in
[RFC4861] and [RFC4862], is the only supported address configuration
mechanism. Stateful DHCPv6-based address configuration [RFC3315] is
not supported by 3GPP specifications.
>> {ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Active = True
>> {ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Settings = {}
>> {ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] IPv6.Settings = {}
>> {ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Active = False
>Otherwise seems like oFono is doing everything just fine.
Yes, and everything is working with the patchset unlike without it only
ip(v4)-pdp works ok.
Another operator (Three.co.uk):
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Protocol = dual
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Settings = { Method = static, Interface =
rmnet0, DomainNameServers = 217.171.132.1 217.171.132.1, Netmask =
255.255.255.0, Address = 92.41.159.199, Gateway = 92.41.159.193 }
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] IPv6.Settings = { Interface = rmnet0 }
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Active = True
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Settings = {}
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] IPv6.Settings = {}
{ConnectionContext} [/ril_0/context1] Active = False
Br,
Pasi
___
connman mailing list
connman@connman.net
https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
