Karsten:
Package: mumble
X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected]
Version: 1.3.4-1
Severity: normal

Hello,

please refer to this bug report at mumble:
https://github.com/mumble-voip/mumble/issues/5382

The connection of the client to the server is always rejected the first time.
Afterwards it connects with a "next server":

|<W>2021-12-27 10:28:31.399 ServerHandler: connection attempt to 
[2001:4dd0:af1b:3a0f:ca0e:14ff:fee6:a090]:64738 failed:
Verbindung verweigert (0); trying next server.... |

The above connection attempt is to an IPv6 address. Can you please verify that the Murmur / mumble-server in question actually has IPv6 connectivity to it?

[IPv6 is more common in Europe, not so much in the United States where I am, so when I see this it's "usually an error".]

In the config file in the upstream but report, I see this:

 ; Specific IP or hostname to bind to.
 ; If this is left blank (default), Murmur will bind to all available addresses.
 host=192.168.1.3

That's an IPv4 listening address, not IPv6

I think this is some kid of DNS lookup issue, where the client (for some reason) is getting an IPv6 address to connect to, but the server is only listening on IPv4. i.e. best I can tell this is an IP networking issue, unrelated to Mumur / mumble-server.

With the older server V 1.2.18 this message does not appear.

A connection with the older client V 1.3.0 (within Debian 10) to the current 
server is generally not possible and always
rejected!

But in the upstream bug report, there's a comment stating the opposite;
"The other client that works is on Debian 10 with client V 1.3.0"

https://github.com/mumble-voip/mumble/issues/5382#issuecomment-1000475491

?

Maybe the maintainer can help with this problem?
One of the things I looking for and don't see in the bug report is what the IP address was the logs for a /working/ connection. If I was able to see that a connection attempt went to the same IPv6 address and worked, that would eliminate IPv4 vs IPv6 being the problem.

   -- Chris

--
Chris Knadle
[email protected]

Reply via email to