search for: add_subnets

Hello tincers, I run a small tinc mesh using version 1.1pre10 on mostly linux (debian) hosts. In the past, I was able to successfully join my windows machine to the tinc network, when I was running an earlier version of tinc (throughout the mesh). However, with 1.1pre10, I have had no success. Is this a known error, a misconfiguration on my part, or some other issue? I currently have no tinc-up

Hi all, I'm using a tinc 1.0.19 (from Debian Squeeze) setup with some nodes connecting to a "server" node which has "StrictSubnets = yes". Whenever a new node is added to the mesh, a process generates and drops its host file in the server's host directory before the node is booted and tries to connect. For instance, I create a node "node_2" and a host file

Hello, we currently set up a large tinc network with 2 central Nodes (these nodes connecting to each other). All satellites (ca 40) connect to these both machines. All containing two ConntectTo fields (for backup) e.g. (satellite) Name = nfp_hy Device = /dev/tun PrivateKeyFile = /etc/tinc/nfp_hy/rsa_key.priv ConnectTo = nfp_f_vpn ConnectTo = nfp_c_vpn If the count of satellites reaches

Hi All, I've been playing around with TINC and like what I've seen so far. I wanted a TINC tunnel like this, where I have a server on the Internet with a public IPv4 address as my TINC server. Then I can have clients connect to it and see each other except that the client at a customer site would allow me to route behind it so I could see hosts on site beyond my device on premise. I do

Hello, I have been reading through the documentation and trying to set up a very small VPN as a test for a larger rollout that I would like to complete in the future but cannot get this working. The configuration seems like it should be relatively simple, so I'm most likely missing something basic but I just cannot see what I'm doing wrong. At the moment I am trying to get this working

TL;DR: a proposal for a new tinc feature that allows nodes to filter ADD_SUBNET messages based on the metaconnection on which they are received, so that nodes can't impersonate each other's VPN Subnets. Similar to StrictSubnets in spirit, but way more flexible. BACKGROUND: THE ISSUE OF TRUST IN A TINC NETWORK In terms of metaconnections (I'm not discussing data tunnels here), one of

Hi there I have the following setup Home - Main Tinc server with public IP running on PfSense work - tinc client running behind a CISCO ASA firewall with public IP running on Windows 10 offsite - tinc client running on tomato router behind a double NAT Home & offsite connect & i can see all PCs & devices & connect to them easily, on either side work to Home or offsite connects

Guus, I have a question on how to interprete the following fragment of the man page: StrictSubnets = yes | no (no) [experimental] When this option is enabled tinc will only use Subnet statements which are present in the host config files in the local /etc/tinc/NETNAME/hosts/ directory. Does this mean it will ignore any subnets learnt through ADD_SUBNET? Perhaps

Hi, We want to deploy a tinc VPN, with more than 50 sites connected all arround the world. But we cannot trust all our sites with the same level, so the tinc solution (automatic full mesh) is "too automatic" for us : *any* node can add a new node which will be connected directly to others. A solution could be TLS (signing public keys), but create a PKI is another issue for us.

Hello, I'm trying to test a tinc vpn between two Linux hosts on the same ethernet. If I start tinc on both sides as 'tinc -n test --bypass-security --debug=5' I can ping both machines from each other and tcpdump shows that the packets pass through the tun-device created by tinc. Connection from 192.168.192.17 port 32852 Sending ID to (null) (192.168.192.17 port 32852): 0 helix 17

Hello, I am tying to create tinc vpn for the ~1000 nodes and was thinking why meta connections are needed at all if I only need static configuration where every node knows addresses of other hosts and due to the amount of traffic any indirect connections will not work, so DirectOnly=yes is a must and then passing around routing information is not needed, right? Currently I have 10 nodes

I have now got the tinc demons (on network OFFICES) on BranchB and BranchA talking to each other, see below for log from BranchB. For some trouble shouting issues relating to OsX see at the end of my e-mail. However, I have not yet achieved the network connectivity/routing that I would like. The aim is: BranchB is a laptop I would like to connect it (via tinc) to my office network, so that

Hello! I have recently installed tinc on a linux 2.4 machine which has 192.168.0.0/24 private network connected to eth0 and registered ip on eth1. I also installed tinc on Windows 2000 machine on a remote location. for this moment I can establish connection, on Linux machine tincd says: Sep 26 21:10:50 hostname tinc.gscvpn[483]: Node home (y.y.y.y port 655) became reachable But i

Hello, Here is a patch for protocol_subnet.c with two modifications : - in tunnelserver mode, tinc must check subnets in the ".../hosts/owner" config file, not in "c->config_tree" (which is the configuration of the meta-connection from which we receive the ADD_SUBNET message). - this checking can be made before the check of the owner, especially before any

Hello! I have encountered a bug using tincd with Microsoft Windows: Below you'll find my Setup and my Logs. In short, i do the following: 1. office running tincd 1.0.7 and waiting for connections (no ConnectTo, but this does not resolve the issue) 2. the supporter starts up tincd 1.0.7 on windows (native) 3. ping from windows ("support") to the office: Here the error occours:

Hi, Guus I did some test regarding the points you mentioned below, and yes, you’re right, but some of points may need further adjusted: 1. The destination of IPv4 wouldn’t be changed, Yes I agree, that’s the goal and final destination for the communication. But during the path, it may be encapsulated into another packet(tunnel mode), where the outside IP header is the physical address, but the

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015, Guus Sliepen wrote: > It also works in a situation where a group of people trust a central > authority which provides them with the configuration for their tinc > nodes, if StrictSubnets is used. The drawback is that an external tool > needs to be used (ChaosVPN is one such example, but there are others) > and it is not very flexible, but I would disagree that

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I'm using tinc to connect a couple of ipv6 capable machines using a mix of upd6, udp4, tcp6 and tcp4. Now I wanted to add an linux embedded device, which has no ipv6 support at all. Tinc did compile and configuration is fine (tested on other machine), but after connecting the embedded device to other hosts tinc instances, it suddenly crashes.

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 02:15:36PM +0800, Bright Zhao wrote: > 1. The destination of IPv4 wouldn’t be changed, Yes I agree, that’s the goal and final destination for the communication. But during the path, it may be encapsulated into another packet(tunnel mode), where the outside IP header is the physical address, but the inner destination remain unchanged, and I think Tinc encapsulates into

On 09/03/2016 10:56 AM, Etienne Dechamps wrote: > C will still need keys in order to establish metaconnections with A and B (as > well as a few other things). However there is no need for C to own any > "Subnets" at all. If somebody breaks into C, he could get access to the vpn network, right? Because the keys are there, it will be possible to use them to get access. Even if