search for: martinmoen

You have a typo in your routes: fd80:2015:2105:adcd::/6 abcd vs. adcd On 21 May 2015, at 19:35, Martin <martinmoen at gmail.com<mailto:martinmoen at gmail.com>> wrote: I have 2 nodes nodeA and nodeB I'm using tinc 1.1pre11 -- nodeA(fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1) : $ ip -6 route fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1 dev tun0 proto kernel metric 256 fd80:2015:2105:adcd::/64 dev tun0 metric 1024 fe80::/64 dev eth0 p...

I have 2 nodes nodeA and nodeB I'm using tinc 1.1pre11 -- nodeA(fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1) : $ ip -6 route fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1 dev tun0 proto kernel metric 256 fd80:2015:2105:adcd::/64 dev tun0 metric 1024 fe80::/64 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 $ ping6 fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1 PING fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1(fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1:

I'm trying to run tinc inside a docker container. The only way to run it at the moment is giving the container full privileges which makes me uneasy. When I tried to specifically give docker only access to /dev/net/tun I get a message Error while reading from Linux tun/tap device (tun mode) /dev/net/tun: File descriptor in bad state Does tinc or tun require access to any other devices?

Hi, I'm not trying to rock any boats or make noise and I'm not interested in discussing politics either, but I just wanted to get a general feel for what the rest of the tinc community felt in regards to how the EU looks like it wants to completely break encryption and make tools like tinc unfeasible. Both Germany and France want this to happen and in the UK the snoopers charter has

Hello, I need to build a VPN, and I am not sure if tinc is the right tool to use. I am more familiar with OpenVPN. I have a few boxes at home, behind a router with a dynamic IP address. Those boxes host some services, like web sites, for instance. I have a server hosted online, with a few IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. All addresses being static, of course. I am planning to use tinc on Debian, to

I'm writing a storage app for storing the Ed25519 pub keys and want to do some basic verification when a user submits their public key. Is it just A-Za-z0-9 ? or can it contain special chars as well? I'm assuming it will be in the range of printable characters? Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I'm running a ipv6 mesh(only 2 nodes) and tried setting the compression to 6 on both nodes. When the network is brought up the tinc dump nodes does not show that any of them have compression enabled. I'm able to ping6 one node and get a single reply however I get no more replies. When I look at the debug output I see the tinc daemon sends packets but is not getting any replies from the

Would it not make more sense to have this on packagers responsiblity instead like you were saying adding it into the upstream repo. Maybe have a secondary repo that people can contribute to for distribution specific files and install scripts. On 24 September 2015 at 21:30, Guus Sliepen <guus at tinc-vpn.org> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 05:45:36PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote: >

So I'm not running it on each individual container. Instead I'm running with a guarantee of at least one tinc container on each coreos host and then connect to other containers(currently have about 20 hosts running across the world with this setup) I find on the whole setup to work well, I'm not noticing any unusual overhead, but there is a lot of extra provisioning work I'm doing

Just curious if there is any way to set the Subnet of an invitation. Thanks Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.tinc-vpn.org/pipermail/tinc/attachments/20170517/3be76840/attachment.html>

Hi Andrê, So by nodes I assume you mean the "boxes". I would suggest each "box" gets it's own tinc node(with a static ip) and then on the server it should be a matter of pointing at the ip address of the appropriate box tinc ip address. I've done this myself with WireGuard and it works great. On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 7:14 AM André Rodier <andre at rodier.me>

I've been trying out IPv6 networking with tinc and noticed that it will not route smaller segments than /48 If I try to run ip -6 route add aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd::/64 dev tun0 I get network unreachable However if I run ip -6 route add aaaa:bbbb:cccc::/48 dev tun0 it works fine Is this is a limitation in tinc or the kernel network stack itself? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Fantastic, having it in the CLI would great. It is for the reason of users losing the pub key that I ask, writing some docs for an internal network. Ah interesting, I finally found openssl does not have the 25519 curve in there(and no plans to do so looks like) but I was not aware there was non standard priv key format either. Would it make sense for the tinc -n <netname> get

Is there any way to obtain the public key from the private key? I know it's in host file however for the purpose of this message I need to be able to generate it on the command line. I tried openssl ec < ed25519_key.priv I get an error read EC key unable to load Key 140092556813984:error:0906D06C:PEM routines:PEM_read_bio:no start line:pem_lib.c:703:Expecting: ANY PRIVATE KEY

Hi Jared, I've seen the same while testing on digital ocean, I think it's the context switching that happens when sending a packet. I've done some testing with wireguard and that has a lot better performance but it's still changing quite a lot and only does a subset of what tinc does so probably not a stable solution. Martin On Wed, 17 May 2017 at 18:05 Jared Ledvina <jared at