search for: edechamps

On 12 November 2015 at 01:15, fauno <fauno at kiwwwi.com.ar> wrote: > Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> writes: >> (I realize that this means UPnP support could possibly be achieved >> simply by suggesting that the user spawn some standalone UPnP client >> process in the background from the tinc-up hook. That's not very >> user-friendly, though. Especially on Window...

..., Jul 14, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Rob Townley <rob.townley at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Have anything to do with firewall locations, meaning home vs work vs >> public vs lockdown. Probably not it at all. >> On Jul 13, 2016 3:22 PM, "Etienne Dechamps" <etienne at edechamps.fr> wrote: >> >>> That's strange. Can you post a detailed log from the affected node (run >>> tincd -d5 -D), especially the initialization phase? >>> >>> On 13 July 2016 at 16:17, Petr Man <petr at madnetwork.org> wrote: >>> >>&g...

...conflicts, and it all goes downhill from there. That would completely explain the weird phenomena you're reporting. If you make sure to use different IP subnets for VPN addresses and physical addresses, your problems should go away. On 14 February 2017 at 20:36, Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> wrote: > On 14 February 2017 at 18:59, James Hartig <james at levenlabs.com> wrote: >> When you say "and to the local network" what IP does it try to send to >> on the local network? The subnet address? > > No. The Subnet option deals with routing *inside...

On 11 November 2015 at 21:57, David Nicol <davidnicol at gmail.com> wrote: > it is entirely possible to write code that uses threads on Win32 and forks > on POSIX by abstracting the communication bits generically. Signalling could > work over pipes on both. > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa365152(v=vs.85).aspx Hum... yes of course, but I

...nd time, I remove the C route from A’s routing table, then the traffic sent to B, and B sent to C; which exactly the same as you indicate below. > > Thank you very much, this makes me much better understanding on Tinc. > >> On 1 May 2017, at 6:23 PM, Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr <mailto:etienne at edechamps.fr>> wrote: >> >> There is no concept of "client" or "server" in tinc. tinc is purely peer-to-peer. "ConnectTo" statements only indicate which node will attempt to establish the initial connection, but once the conn...

Sure, I?ll see if we can narrow it down for you. > On Jun 12, 2015, at 2:25 PM, Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> wrote: > > That's interesting. I'm using a near-HEAD tinc-1.1 myself and haven't > encountered this problem, but I think that's because I'm using it in > router mode, as opposed to switch mode. > > I'm trying to narrow this down to a recent commit,...

...he destination node, but which would have to be forwarded by an intermediate node, are dropped instead. When combined with the IndirectData option, packets for nodes for which we do not have a meta connection with are also dropped. > On 1 May 2017, at 6:33 PM, Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> wrote: > > Yes. Look up the "IndirectData" configuration option. > > On 1 May 2017 at 11:30, Bright Zhao <startryst at gmail.com <mailto:startryst at gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi, Etienne > > In addition, is there any option or switch can turn of the...

Have anything to do with firewall locations, meaning home vs work vs public vs lockdown. Probably not it at all. On Jul 13, 2016 3:22 PM, "Etienne Dechamps" <etienne at edechamps.fr> wrote: > That's strange. Can you post a detailed log from the affected node (run > tincd -d5 -D), especially the initialization phase? > > On 13 July 2016 at 16:17, Petr Man <petr at madnetwork.org> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I have been successfu...

...gt; >> On Jun 12, 2015, at 3:51 PM, Chris Clements <cclements at outlook.com <mailto:cclements at outlook.com>> wrote: >> >> Sure, I?ll see if we can narrow it down for you. >> >> >>> On Jun 12, 2015, at 2:25 PM, Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr <mailto:etienne at edechamps.fr>> wrote: >>> >>> That's interesting. I'm using a near-HEAD tinc-1.1 myself and haven't >>> encountered this problem, but I think that's because I'm using it in >>> router mode, as opposed to switch...

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Guus Sliepen <guus at tinc-vpn.org> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 04:08:47PM +0900, crocket wrote: > >> If tincd is started before name resolution comes up, it keeps failing >> for ever to resolve domain names in Address= host configuration >> variable after name resolution becomes possible. >> >> I think tincd should

...Hibernation. I think that at some point I started using the OpenVPN drivers when I had either had trouble with unsigned drivers or the network detection and then just stayed with it. Thanks for pointing out my self-made problem. On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> wrote: > You should try using the older TAP-Win32 drivers that are bundled with > tinc (i.e. 9.0.0.9). Using the newer, NDIS6 drivers (>= 9.0.0.21) is not > recommended; according to some testing I did in the past it seems to result > in poor tinc performance (for reasons I w...

...t = 192.168.1.0/24 for the office, yet the IP address for the office is 192.168.1.2. Is that example no longer valid or am I misunderstanding? On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:01 PM, James Hartig <james at levenlabs.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> > wrote: > > Hang on a second. I've just re-read your original message and I > > believe you are confused about what the "Subnet" option does. Again, > > it deals with addresses *inside* the VPN. In the configuration you > > posted you seem to be usin...

...gt; doesn't see it. > > I have a suspicion now there is something wrong with the distro/kernel. As > a test: > > netcat -ul -p600 > ss -nlptu | grep netcat > > gives me no output... > > Petr > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> > wrote: > >> You might want to try with https://github.com/gsliepen/tinc/pull/120 - >> that said, this bug probably doesn't explain everything because tinc is >> supposed to log a message from setup_vpn_in_socket() anyway, but there's no >> such message...

...pened (the UDP socket), used and yet "ss -nlptu" doesn't see it. I have a suspicion now there is something wrong with the distro/kernel. As a test: netcat -ul -p600 ss -nlptu | grep netcat gives me no output... Petr On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> wrote: > You might want to try with https://github.com/gsliepen/tinc/pull/120 - > that said, this bug probably doesn't explain everything because tinc is > supposed to log a message from setup_vpn_in_socket() anyway, but there's no > such message in your log. In addition...

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> wrote: > Hang on a second. I've just re-read your original message and I > believe you are confused about what the "Subnet" option does. Again, > it deals with addresses *inside* the VPN. In the configuration you > posted you seem to be using 10.240.0.4 and 10.240.0...

There is no concept of "client" or "server" in tinc. tinc is purely peer-to-peer. "ConnectTo" statements only indicate which node will attempt to establish the initial connection, but once the connection is established, direction does not matter. It is unclear from your message which node is responsible for which subnet. If X/32 truly belongs to C, then simply set

...office, yet the IP address for the office is 192.168.1.2. > > Is that example no longer valid or am I misunderstanding? > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:01 PM, James Hartig <james at levenlabs.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> >> wrote: >> > Hang on a second. I've just re-read your original message and I >> > believe you are confused about what the "Subnet" option does. Again, >> > it deals with addresses *inside* the VPN. In the configuration you >> > posted...

...le), and establish full mesh VPN among them on-demand. So technically speaking, only one ConnectTo would be enough for the node to join the full mesh VPN, but in order to provide resilience, add a second ConnectTo will be beneficial. > On 1 May 2017, at 6:39 PM, Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> wrote: > > If you have multiple ConnectTo statements in your tinc.conf, then tinc will attempt to establish connections with *all* of them. It is not a fallback, though it is a good idea for every node to have at least two direct connections for improved resiliency and fault tolerance...

> On Jun 4, 2015, at 5:52 PM, Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> wrote: > > Are you sure B is correctly configured to forward packets at the layer > 3 level between the interface of the "router" tinc and the interface > of the "switch" tinc? (iptables, etc.) > No, I am not sure about this and I think this is what I do...

Agreed. On Feb 1, 2015 4:21 AM, "Etienne Dechamps" <etienne at edechamps.fr> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Guus Sliepen <guus at tinc-vpn.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 04:08:47PM +0900, crocket wrote: > > > >> If tincd is started before name resolution comes up, it keeps failing > >> for ever to resolve do...