[zeromq-dev] SOLUTION-- Encryption failure problem and wireless connectivity

[Gerry Steele]

Do you see the same for any other tcp traffic?
On 15 Dec 2014 19:40, "Steve Murphy" <murf at parsetree.com> wrote:

> Pieter--
>
> I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I didn't make it clear
> that my app was running on over a dozen different hosts,
> all spread across the internet. I was also trying to
> run it on my home machine, and found I couldn't get a curve
> connection to any other box from just my local machine.   I don't think
> that
> CURVE affects the network at all. My theory is that my wireless
> connection was so lousy at the moment (it varies with
> time and, apparently, weather conditions), irregardless
> of CURVE, that CURVE couldn't get in a word
> edgewise and the handshake couldn't complete the
> startup protocol. The same software, running on a machine
> a more solid network connection, yielded successful
> CURVE encryption and communication.
>
> At least, that's my theory as to why it wouldn't work on my machine.
>
> I suspect that, had I run the program some hours/days earlier or
> later, I wouldn't have had any problems. Such are the transient
> vagaries of wireless, temperature, weather, auroras, sunspots,
> and maybe even the phase of the moon.
>
> murf
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:
>
>> There's no theory where CURVE encryption can affect network
>> performance. So anything you're seeing which suggests this is
>> coincidence. The only plausible interference I could imagine is heavy
>> CPU cost on a node causing it to be slightly slower, yet this should
>> make the network happier, not sadder.
>>
>> If you have any theory how encryption could affect network
>> reliability, I'd like to hear it.
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Steve Murphy <murf at parsetree.com> wrote:
>> > Pieter--
>> >
>> > C
>> > ould you elaborate a little on the coincidence?
>> > I, and maybe others, could benefit by your thoughts,
>> > I believe!
>> >
>> > murf
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Since CurveZMQ runs over TCP, and the encryption is entirely
>> >> abstracted from the network, this is probably coincidence.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Steve Murphy <murf at parsetree.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > Hello, fellow zeromq devs!
>> >> >
>> >> > Some months ago, I posted a problem I was having,
>> >> > that was quite vexing. Since then, I figured it out, and
>> >> > thought I should share before it completely gets forgotten.
>> >> >
>> >> > The problem appeared at first blush, to be an incompatibility
>> >> > between Ubuntu and CentOS. My home node is running
>> >> > Ubuntu, and all my other nodes were mostly CentOS. All
>> >> > the CentoOS nodes were behaving normally, with CURVE
>> >> > encryption between them. But on my home Ubuntu machine,
>> >> > the same code would not establish an encrypted connection.
>> >> >
>> >> > At last, after wiresharking the back and forth protocol of CURVE
>> >> > encryption, I saw that the protocol seemed to get to a certain
>> >> > stage, and then just quit. I delved deeper and deeper into the code
>> >> > underneath, and still, no particular failure point!
>> >> >
>> >> > Then it hit me: My home is connected to the internet via a wireless
>> >> > connection. Could it be my connection? I did an MTR betwen my home
>> >> > machine and the other centOS mechines, and sure enough, I was
>> >> > seeing a 50% packet loss! I had not noticed any performance drop
>> >> > in my connection; no slowdowns. Normally mtr between my home and
>> >> > the internet is pretty clean, but that week, it was a bit shaky.
>> >> >
>> >> > Moved the testing off my machine and no problem.
>> >> >
>> >> > So, I think I may have a found a packet loss percentage at which
>> >> > CURVE encryption will no longer operate (but unencrypted connections
>> >> > will),
>> >> > but, to be fair, the connection is via Motorola Canopy hardware, and
>> the
>> >> > other end of the link is somewhere near 6 miles away. Packet losses
>> >> > in that environment could get somewhat selective as to size or
>> timing.
>> >> >
>> >> > Just a heads-up to the other newbies on this mailing list, of a
>> possible
>> >> > pitfall, and how to detect it.
>> >> >
>> >> > murf
>> >> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Steve Murphy
>> > ParseTree Corporation
>> > 57 Lane 17
>> > Cody, WY 82414
>> > ✉  murf at parsetree dot com
>> > ☎ 307-899-5535
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > zeromq-dev mailing list
>> > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Steve Murphy
> ParseTree Corporation
> 57 Lane 17
> Cody, WY 82414
> ✉  murf at parsetree dot com
> ☎ 307-899-5535
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20141219/9c3746b8/attachment.htm>