I've noticed my system wasn't receiving new messages from the BBSlink network. When I force a call out and watch my events, I see it log in successfully, then:
QNET-FTP: KK4QBN.qwk NOT downloaded socket_error=60 (no new messages?)
When I try to upload a REP packet I get:
!ftp_put failed socket_error=60
Downloads from DOVE-Net are working fine. I tried ftping into kk4qbn.synchro.net from my work iMac, and was able to login and download the qwk file okay that way.
Any way to determine where the issue is?
I've noticed my system wasn't receiving new messages from the BBSlink network. When I force a call out and watch my events, I see it log in successfully, then:
QNET-FTP: KK4QBN.qwk NOT downloaded socket_error=60 (no new messages?)
I've noticed my system wasn't receiving new messages from the BBSlink network. When I force a call out and watch my > > events, I see it log in successfully, then:
QNET-FTP: KK4QBN.qwk NOT downloaded socket_error=60 (no new messages?)
When I try to upload a REP packet I get:
!ftp_put failed socket_error=60
use the KK4QBN-FTP bin file that comes with the BBSLink packet.
I've noticed my system wasn't receiving new messages from the BBSlink
network. When I force a call out and watch my > > events, I see it log
in successfully, then:
QNET-FTP: KK4QBN.qwk NOT downloaded socket_error=60 (no new messages?)
When I try to upload a REP packet I get:
!ftp_put failed socket_error=60
I get the same error(s) as well for BBSLink.
I've noticed my system wasn't receiving new messages from the BBSlink
network. When I force a call out and watch my > > events, I see it log
in successfully, then:
QNET-FTP: KK4QBN.qwk NOT downloaded socket_error=60 (no new messages?)
When I try to upload a REP packet I get:
!ftp_put failed socket_error=60
I get the same error(s) as well for BBSLink.
Okay, I've tried:
Having the network callout use the qwk-kk4qbn.bin module
Recompling a new version of qnet-ftp with the pasv option changed (as recommended by Digital Man)
Neither seems to have fixed the issue. it was working fine until about a week ago I think? Most recent message I have is around June 22.
I'm wondering if you forgot to add the conference numbers to each conference.
I'm wondering if you forgot to add the conference numbers to each conference.
That's not the problem - it was working fine for a while and messages were going in and out okay. This appears to be a problem even connecting to the FTP server correctly.
I've noticed my system wasn't receiving new messages from the BBSlink network. When I force a call out and watch my events, I see it log in successfully, then:
!ftp_put failed socket_error=60
I get the same error(s) as well for BBSLink.
use the KK4QBN-FTP bin file that comes with the BBSLink packet.
Tried that last night and it didn't seem to fix things. I'm going to try what Digital Man recommended (making a change and recompling QNET-FTP) later tonight before I go shout at KK4QBN.
[0m
Okay, I've tried:
Having the network callout use the qwk-kk4qbn.bin module
Recompling a new version of qnet-ftp with the pasv option changed (as recommended by Digital Man)
Neither seems to have fixed the issue. it was working fine until about a week ago I think? Most recent message I have is around June 22.
That's not the problem - it was working fine for a while and messages were going in and out okay. This appears to be a problem even connecting to the FTP server correctly.
That's not the problem - it was working fine for a while and
messages were going in and out okay. This appears to be a problem
even connecting to the FTP server correctly.
Check your outbound and see what your system is trying to send me, your connection is timing out while your system is attempting to upload a rep file.
I've completely nuked my BBSlink setup and set it all back up again. It's no longer attempting to upload a REP, but it's still getting socket error 60 on downloads. (had some incorrect information a few times, ignore those attempts)
This is using qnet-ftp, qwk_kk4qbn, and a custom qnet-ftp I compiled
to change the transfer mode.
I've completely nuked my BBSlink setup and set it all back up again.
It's no longer attempting to upload a REP, but it's still getting
socket error 60 on downloads. (had some incorrect information a few
times, ignore those attempts)
if you did nuke the BBSlink setup and start over, I don't understand why its sending a rep packet unless there are some conference numbers mixed up somewhere. and earlier in the day the rep packet it was trying to upload appeared to be 18mb
I did a test message to force it to try another REP for testing purposes. The .rep sitting in my /data folder waiting to upload is only 1KB. :\
[0m
your account was working fine earlier right?
I did a test message to force it to try another REP for testing
purposes. The .rep sitting in my /data folder waiting to upload is
only 1KB. :\ [0m
your account was working fine earlier right?
Yep - you can see some earlier posts by me in a few of the groups. That's what gets me, it still pulls from vertrauen for DOVEnet just fine, and was working fine with yours until it just stopped one day.
I've deleted my test message and will delete the REP packet when I get a chance, but when I did so last night it still had timeout errors with the download - but this time it was saying error 0 (no new messages) even though I'd logged in and reset my message pointers repeatedly.
Is it possible to pull the messages from another BBS running the network in case our two systems just hate each other like a married couple who voted for Clinton & Trump?
From what I can see with the logs and reading up more, our routers are pretty much going into a deadlock, but the PORT command is working correctly:
for shits and giggles I even went as far as deleting your QWK account and creating another under a different user number, this is stricly a connection issue I assume.. Your router does'nt happen to be a F@ST does it? (sagecomm 4320 here).
Yes it is, you can pull it from ANY other system who would care to serve it to you. it would be nice to have another hub anyway for issues just like this.
So if you can find anyone, that would be nice, or if someone would like to volunteer (HINT HINT).
7/3 08:48:50 ftp 0045 TX: 230 You are allowed 240 minutes of use for this session.
7/3 08:48:50 ftp 0045 RX: TYPE I
7/3 08:48:50 ftp 0045 TX: 200 All files sent in BINARY mode.
7/3 08:48:50 ftp 0045 RX: PORT 172,31,5,129,14,1
7/3 08:48:50 ftp 0045 TX: 200 PORT Command successful.
So that gets you into PASV mode correctly. But then when you go to
upload the REP packet, your system is trying to upload it in ACTIVE
mode. so its opening a PASV data channel correctly, but not using it.
7/3 08:48:50 ftp 0045 RX: STOR KK4QBN.rep
7/3 08:48:50 ftp 0045 DS94 uploading: /sbbs/data/file/0125.rep in active mode
Re: Socket error 60 when downloading QWK (BBSlink)
By: KK4QBN to Deepthaw on Sun Jul 02 2017 06:11 am
Check your outbound and see what your system is trying to send me, your connection is timing out while your system is attempting to upload a rep file.
I've completely nuked my BBSlink setup and set it all back up again. It's no longer attempting to upload a REP, but it's still getting socket error 60 on downloads. (had some incorrect information a few times, ignore those attempts)
This is using qnet-ftp, qwk_kk4qbn, and a custom qnet-ftp I compiled
to change the transfer mode.
I reset my message pointers, and if I connect via telnet, it offers and sends the QWK packet via zmodem just fine.
I think I've eliminated everything I can on my end. I *was* able to connect and download some stuff via the FTP client on my Windows box, no idea if that helps.
Re: Socket error 60 when downloading QWK (BBSlink)
By: KK4QBN to Deepthaw on Mon Jul 03 2017 07:15:13
I did a test message to force it to try another REP for testing
purposes. The .rep sitting in my /data folder waiting to upload is
only 1KB. :\ [0m
From what I can see with the logs and reading up more, our routers are pretty much going into a deadlock, but the PORT command is working correctly:
7/3 08:48:50 ftp 0045 TX: 230 You are allowed 240 minutes of use for this session.
7/3 08:48:50 ftp 0045 RX: TYPE I
7/3 08:48:50 ftp 0045 TX: 200 All files sent in BINARY mode.
7/3 08:48:50 ftp 0045 RX: PORT 172,31,5,129,14,1
7/3 08:48:50 ftp 0045 TX: 200 PORT Command successful.
So that gets you into PASV mode correctly.
But then when you go to upload
the REP packet, your system is trying to upload it in ACTIVE mode. so its opening a PASV data channel correctly, but not using it.
7/3 08:48:50 ftp 0045 RX: STOR KK4QBN.rep
7/3 08:48:50 ftp 0045 DS94 uploading: /sbbs/data/file/0125.rep in active mode 7/3 08:48:50 ftp 0045 TX: 150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for file transfer.
7/3 08:48:50 ftp 0045 DATA socket 49 opened
7/3 08:51:01 ftp 0045 !DATA ERROR -1 (110) connecting to client 172.31.5.129 port 3585 on socket 49
My system is hosted on Amazon's EC2 web services, so I have zero control over the router. I'd *assume* it's all up to spec, since I can't see Amazon not having their routers setup correctly.
I think I'll just stop tinkering with it for a while and let the problem stew. That fixes a surprising number of issues.
If I could actually get the messages from your system, I'd volunteer! (Mine's running 24/7 on a hosted service, so I expect little to no downtime.) [0m
for there to be PASV mode, the client should issue the PASV command and then perform the transaction... at least that's the way i see numerous ftp clients do it on my ftp server... i'm not aware of PASV being default and already active...
AFAIK, PASV should have been issued just before this STOR command...
No, the FTP PORT command is for active transfer mode (the server opens a connection back to the client). This is the opposite of PASV (passive) mode.
7/3 08:51:01 ftp 0045 !DATA ERROR -1 (110) connecting to client
172.31.5.129 port 3585 on socket 49
This indicates the FTP server is trying to open a connection back to the client (which is normal for ACTIVE FTP transfer mode) but failing. This is usually an indication of a problem on the client side (e.g. a firewall or NAT gateway allowing the incoming connection), but the cause could be on either side.
Testing just the "dir" command with FTP clients in both active and passive mode should help identify the problem.
Deepthaw wrote to KK4QBN <=-
volunteer (HINT HINT).
If I could actually get the messages from your system, I'd volunteer! (Mine's running 24/7 on a hosted service, so I expect little to no downtime.)
So something possibly that Amazon is doing. I was beginning to wonder because I'm not having issues with other nodes.
Testing just the "dir" command with FTP clients in both active and passive mode should help identify the problem.
Did you catch that Deepthaw.
Once I'm setup, I'd be happy to hub, I have over 30Mbps upstream bandwidth ere.
Yep - I poked around all that quite a bit, and it's all working again and I don't know even know what, if anything, I changed. I deleted everything and set it up back up again and it magically fixed it. That's a bit too close to "have you tried turning it off and back on" for my liking, but I'll take it. [0m
KK4QBN wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Yeah, you're more than welcome to. If you wanna take the setup packet
and customize it to fit your setup we'll be good to go. just drop it in your kk4qbn.out directory when finished. and we'll distribute it and
let all the new nodes and any who want to switch pull off you. I have
to admit I had actually pulled the plug on it until about 7 or so
people contacted me at one time. the main reason is because my system resources :)
Sure. I would like to have a simple process for people to apply/request a feed, so I know to turn on access. It will be a day or 2, I'm booked solid for the rest of today (track training, followed by a meeting), then have an appoint first thing in the morning. Just got a quiet few minutes between engagements now.
for there to be PASV mode, the client should issue the PASV command
and then perform the transaction... at least that's the way i see
numerous ftp clients do it on my ftp server... i'm not aware of PASV
being default and already active...
I may be way off on this, but from what I read, thats what it does
when it issues the PORT command, the client asks the server to assign
a pasv port numbber, then goes from there.
nope... PORT is active... PASV is issued by the client and the server follows...
KK4QBN wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
In your newuser.js you will see where you can uncomment some lines to serve as a qwk hub.
I do apologize in advance, I got you and the sysop of Deep Space 94
mixed up because he stated he would hub also if his feed were to
actually start working.
So we'll work this out somehow.. DIfferent hubs on 2 different
continets will be fine and actually make the network stronger. If he
still wants to hub. I'm sure he'll bring it up in the actual network. I think since it is flowing smoothly now I will back out of speaking of
it much more here :)
except advertisment of course.. Join the BBSLink Network!
nope... PORT is active... PASV is issued by the client and the server
follows...
No need to explain, I realize I had it reversed.. (thought wise) :-)
nope... PORT is active... PASV is issued by the client and the
server follows...
No need to explain, I realize I had it reversed.. (thought wise) :-)
not a problem... it helps others who are following along to also understand ;)
| Sysop: | Winzlo |
|---|---|
| Location: | Minnesota, USA |
| Users: | 11 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 495937:14:23 |
| Calls: | 82 |
| Files: | 1,070 |
| D/L today: |
27 files (11,920K bytes) |
| Messages: | 286,955 |