similar to: Tunnel freezing

I've setup a lab to test the new tunneling options in the latest openssh. Things work well... for a while... then the tunnel goes unidirectional. openssh-SNAP-20060122.tar.gz lab1 config: # uname -a FreeBSD lab1 6.0-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 13 13:01:17 EST 2006 root@:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/SMP i386 # cat /etc/sysctl.conf | egrep -v '(^#|^$)'

Perhaps someone with a sharper brain than I can solve this little mystery. I've Googled until I'm blue in the face, read all TFM's I can find, and tried several iptables rule combinations but just can't get the following to work. Here's my challenge: I have a CentOS-5.3 "main" server with a static public IP address running Apache, OpenVPN, and a bunch of other

/-----------------------\ | | |eth0 |eth0 |-------| |-------| | |eth1 eth1 | | -------- A |____ _______| B |----- | | \ / | | --------| | | --------| | | | |

Dear list, I am having a problem with openvpn. I have the following arrangement, running two instances of openvpn on "home fw". I want to protect my WLAN in back of the home fw and that works fine. I can see "Peer connection initiated with 192.168.1.3:5000" in daemon.log on homefw. Nothing gets initiated with officefw, nor can I ping the other end of the tunnel at officefw.

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2273 Bug ID: 2273 Summary: The group of the tunnel device needs to match with the group of the connecting ssh user Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 6.6p1 Hardware: amd64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5

When using VPN tunnelling (-w option), is there a way to know when the tunnel is actually up? I want to use this in a script that automatically sets up the tunnel by running ssh -w then running ifup [1]. The -f option doesn't help because it returns after connecting to the server but before the tunnel is up. Sleeping for a few seconds does work, but it just feels too hacky. The LocalCommand

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2272 Bug ID: 2272 Summary: Global "PermitTunnel Yes" required to connect to a tunnel Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 6.6p1 Hardware: amd64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P5 Component: sshd

Hi all, I have set up a working OpenVPN2 connection between my Server and my gateway at home. Now I want all traffic to be routed through this VPN connection. Currently everything is going through eth1 to the internet (to the gateway of the University which forwards it to the internet :-). We must use a prox-server and because of this I am not abel to watch the real-Media streams on

Hello I am using openssh as vpn on a router with freewrt.org and rsync to sync my local data to a remote server. Everything works fine for me so far. The only problem is that the channel-1 (tun0) goes down on the router after 50-200MB transfered via tun0 or after 5-20 hours only with a ping to the server . Channel-0 is still working. Tcpdump shows that a ping from the router to the server via

the fact that ssh insists on tap* and tun* tun/tap-device-names is a real nag and prevents from nice and easy solutions in some cases. the channel type used for tun/tap forwarding is tun at openssh.com, and it defines the remote tunnel id to be integer. so from what i understood these packet definitions are static per channel type, so for compatiblity the tun at openssh.com type has to stay,

I was trying the following setup with IPIP tunnels, one that used to work through another ISP, but no longer... Internal network | Linux box 1 (kernel 2.2.24) iif=10.0.0.1, extf=a.b.c.d, tunf=172.16.0.1 | |local metropolitan network | Another Linux box 2 (kernel 2.2.17, or 2.4.19, same result) iif=irrelevant, extf=x.y.z.v,

Hi , I am trying to set up a GRE tunnel between two linux routers. The routers have a 400 MHz Processor. Linux .2 65.0.0.2 Linux LAN1 -------- Router -------- INTERNET ---- Router ---- LAN2 10.10.10.0 .1 208.1.0.1 (Simulated) .1 .1 192.168.2.0/24 /24 Scripts to Create the tunnel ip tunnel add tun0 mode gre remote 65.0.0.1 local

Hi, I''ve got a rather confusing problem. My linux router box has several internet uplinks of various kinds (pppoe, ippp, ethernet). These uplinks are used by a tunnel to another location. It kinda looks like this: eth0 - internet uplink eth1 - LAN tun0 - tunnel device ppp0 - another internet uplink ... Routing is setup with iproute2 in a way that pakets with a source IP from the LAN

Hi, I posted this question yesterday on the Openvpn mailing list, with no response, figured I will ask here too. I have been using openvpn for quite a while, no major problems encountered. Now I need to allow the server to access the lan of the client, and I can not figure out the routing. This is what I have after the tunnel is brought up: SERVER (A.A.A.A) Arx:~# ip addr ... 3: eth1:

Hello, list I have a problem with source address selection. I want all my outgouing mail to go via openvpn tunnel (tun0 device). The tunnel itself works well: # ip ro rep default via 10.9.0.1 # ip ro l dev tun0 10.9.0.1 proto kernel scope link src 10.9.0.2 default via 10.9.0.1 At this moment all mail go through tunnel, and everything fine. Now I want packets with dst port 25 only to go

I am lousy at simple regex and I have not found a solution to a simple problem. I have a vector with some character values that I want to split. Sample data dd1 <- c( "XXY (mat harry)","XXY (jim bob)", "CAMP (joe blow)", "ALP (max jack)") Desired result dd2 <- data.frame( xx = c("XXY", "XXY", "CAMP",

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 12/29/2017 3:59 AM, Wojciech ?ysiak wrote: > firstly check which zone are your interface in : > > bash> firewall-cmd --get-active-zones > > then all you have to do is add a service to the firewall > > firewall-cmd --zone=<INSERT YOUR ZONE> --add-service=openvpn --permanent > > assuming that your Openvpn is running on standard port 1194/tcp|udp, > If not

Can anyone tell me whether I have a routing problem, or an openVPN problem, or something else? I''ve stared at this for so long I think I must be looking in the wrong place! I have 3 machines: Machine A has single ethernet card, eth0, 192.168.5.5 Machine B has eth0, 192.168.5.? on the local net, eth1, 81.2.x.y to the internet, and

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