guus, i just compiled latest cvs: the bug is still there. the diffs i have against what i got from cvs and what is debian 1.0.2_2 show that the only significant addition is of an AF_UNKNOWN and its use, and the use of a tinc- defined sockaddrfree (and copy?) i'm still getting some "Bogus packets" using latest cvs. i _am_ however, it appears... just now... actually getting valid connections... after a few abortive connection attempts... ... but i am still back to square one on the actual packet routing: "Cannot route packet: unknown IPv4 destination address 192.168.1.201" l. -- -- expecting email to be received and understood is a bit like picking up the telephone and immediately dialing without checking for a dial-tone; speaking immediately without listening for either an answer or ring-tone; hanging up immediately and then expecting someone to call you (and to be able to call you). -- every day, people send out email expecting it to be received without being tampered with, read by other people, delayed or simply - without prejudice but lots of incompetence - destroyed. -- please therefore treat email more like you would a CB radio to communicate across the world (via relaying stations): ask and expect people to confirm receipt; send nothing that you don't mind everyone in the world knowing about... Tinc: Discussion list about the tinc VPN daemon Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/ Tinc site: http://tinc.nl.linux.org/
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 01:31:18AM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:> i just compiled latest cvs: the bug is still there.Which branch did you check out? You should use the CABAL branch.> the diffs i have against what i got from cvs and what is > debian 1.0.2_2 show that the only significant addition > is of an AF_UNKNOWN and its use, and the use of a tinc- > defined sockaddrfree (and copy?)1.0.2_2? Our latest release is 1.0.1, so that can't be true.> ... but i am still back to square one on the actual packet > routing: > > "Cannot route packet: unknown IPv4 destination address 192.168.1.201"That means you are missing a Subnet statement that covers that address. -- Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards, Guus Sliepen <guus@sliepen.eu.org> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://brouwer.uvt.nl/pipermail/tinc/attachments/20031106/ef8633dc/attachment.pgp
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 10:25:53AM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:> On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 01:31:18AM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > > > i just compiled latest cvs: the bug is still there. > > Which branch did you check out? You should use the CABAL branch.oh, poot, _now_ he tells me :)> > the diffs i have against what i got from cvs and what is > > debian 1.0.2_2 show that the only significant addition > > is of an AF_UNKNOWN and its use, and the use of a tinc- > > defined sockaddrfree (and copy?) > > 1.0.2_2? Our latest release is 1.0.1, so that can't be true.the _2 is a debian thing: it means the maintainer's second published repackaging attempt of the N.N.N (in this case 1.0.1) developer's> > ... but i am still back to square one on the actual packet > > routing: > > > > "Cannot route packet: unknown IPv4 destination address 192.168.1.201" > > That means you are missing a Subnet statement that covers that address.yes, i sort-of figured that out, sort-of. by switching off the security, i get a subnet added (but still no data routed). i'll get the CABAL branch... will get there in the end, i swear, or die trying. l. Tinc: Discussion list about the tinc VPN daemon Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/ Tinc site: http://tinc.nl.linux.org/