similar to: two networks and network browsing

Dear tinc community, I am using tinc in switch mode. I have three nodes. Two nodes reside on routers, vpn-eth is bridged with internal lan, each router has several machines connected to it's internal lan. Third node is the roadwarrior - "endpoint" linux PC. When the roadwarrior is off - everything works perfectly, machines on both sides can communicate without a problem in any

Hello list, Here is a setup of my network: eth0 <-> router1 <-> eth2 --- wifi --- eth2 <-> router2 <-> eth0 | | eth1 eth1 Router1: eth0 - Internet connection eth1 - Local network (network 10.1.1.0/24) eth2 - Wireless AP (network 10.1.10.0/24) Router2: eth0 - Internet

Hi all, I''ve been using Shorewall 1.42 for a month on two firewalls at work and my own personal colocated server and love it. While pretty familiar with iptables, I don''t like dealing with it on a daily basis, and Shorewall certainly makes life easier. I''ve deployed Shorewall on both our Toronto and Ottawa office firewalls, and have configured a FreeS/WAN IPSEC

A number of you are flailing around trying to get the subject combination to work. You should all be aware that there are parts of this that don''t currently work and that won''t work well until there are enhancements made to Shorewall (and probably to Netfilter). I. There is no clean way currently to support Road Warriors from a Masquerading Netfilter firewall/gateway. As

Hello, i have got a problem with the configuration of an roadwarrior ipsec VPN tunnel with shorewall 2.2.3. I read the Shorewall Kernel 2.6 IPSEC and folowed the instructions to that point where to modify the hosts with the folowing parameters: vpn eth0:0.0.0.0/0 ipsec But i have got an entry like net eth0:0.0.0.0/0 even in the same file: If i

I''ve successfully tested an IPSEC Roadwarrior configuration where both the gateway and the roadwarrior are runniing 2.6 with Racoon. The Shorewall IPSEC-2.6 documentation (http://shorewall.net/IPSEC.htm) has been updated to reflect my experimentation. Note that you can get the new ''ipsecvpn'' script from CVS until I release RC1 in the next day or so. -Tom -- Tom

Hi all, I am trying to establish a vpn tunnel between one CentOS5 IPSec server and a roadwarrior client, CentOS5 too. Roadwarrior use ipsec-tools version 0.6.5-8 (that comes with CentOS5) and server uses version 0.7 (downloaded from ipsec-tools website). My server configuration is: path include "/etc/racoon"; path certificate "/etc/racoon/certs"; path pre_shared_key

Sorry Dag, it is possible to use linux as a roadwarrior client: http://www.fw-1.de/aerasec/ng/vpn-racoon/CP-VPN1-NG-Linux-racoon-roadwarrior.html -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [CentOS] Connecting CentOS to IPSEC VPN (Checkpoint FW1) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:20:55 +0200 From: carlopmart <carlopmart at gmail.com> To: CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org>

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly on this. In thinking about the topology that I am trying to set up, I will probably only set up a "private" DNS on the VPN for the 10.x.x.x users. With this in mind, I have now come up with a new question relating to this. What I will like to do is to give all of the uses, including roadwarriors, a static IP address on the 10.x.x.x address

hi everybody! first, i speak spanish, so, my english is not very clean... i''m developing two ''controls'' or ''widgets'' based in prototype.js library and script.aculo.us effect collection. a flickr slideshow (not finished): http://hector.piloto.cl/flickr/(PUT YOUR FLICKR USER HERE) an example: http://hector.piloto.cl/flickr/cechegoyen and a treeview

>From your post on Oct. 4, 2004 >As I announced earlier, I''m on vacation this week and we are spending >the week at our second home. Before I left, I simulated an IPSEC tunnel >between this house and our home in the Seattle area and I''m pleased to >announce that the real tunnel works flawlessly. > >So I believe that I have done all of the testing that I can

Greetings. El 01/12/2015 a las 09:12 AM, Viktor Trojanovic escribió: > On 26.11.2015 00:48, Hector Suarez Planas wrote: >> Greetings. >> >> I set up a new Samba 4 AD Server and I have some errors. On the tree >> 4.1 this errors not appeared and until 4.2.3: >> >> - On the RSAT: GPO Management ---> Computer Settings ---> Policies >> --->

I put a copy of R 1.8.1 for Windows on our FTP site at: ftp://ftp.odot.state.or.us/outgoing/Test/. It should be there for a few days before it gets deleted. Benjamin Stabler Transportation Planning Analysis Unit Oregon Department of Transportation 555 13th Street NE, Suite 2 Salem, OR 97301 Ph: 503-986-4104 -----Original Message----- From: Peter Wilkinson [mailto:pwilkinson at videotron.ca]

Hello. My situation looks like: localnet 10.2.1.0/24 | 10.2.1.1 eth0 (100Mbit) gateway ppp0 (DSL 1MBit/256kbit) | internet On gateway I have some transparent proxy services. I would like to shape traffic incoming from internet and guarantee some bandwidth for non proxy services. When I shape traffic I shape proxy services too. What I can do? With regards Xperience

This sounds like a problem I had too. In my situation a ms update compromised the administrative templates. You can get the templates from ms. Search for "download Microsoft administrative templates" and choose a link to the official website. These links don't work on my mobile so I can't tell a deeper link, sorry. Regards Tim Am 26. November 2015 00:48:47 MEZ, schrieb Hector

Tom, After reading your latest postings, I am correct in understanding that, even with the netfilter-ipsec and policy patches in kernel 2.6, I still would not be able to connect more that one roadwarrior at a time? Mitch

Buf ... Solved. Problem was that /etc/pam.d/racoon doesn't exists (I found this tip on NetBSD ipsec pages). Simply I have copied /etc/pam.d/passwd to /etc/pam.d/racoon and now all works as expected. Many thanks for your help Ross. Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > > I think it might just use another one like /etc/pam.d/remote > cause I audited the package and it wasn't there.

A couple days ago with help from Guus I got my basic setup running. I played and switched around parameters, modes, subnets etc and always got things working in each config. Trying to move on, I only just now realised that for what I ultimately want to do, I would have to make every machine in my office LAN a tinc node, which I’m not allowed to. I’m allowed to build up a “tinc gateway” (can be

While I have concentrated on support for 2.6 native IPSEC in release 2.2.0, I am still of the opinion that unless you absolutely need IPSEC compatibility that OpenVPN is a much easier (and in the case of roadwarriors, a much better) solution. Having already generated all of the required X.509 certificates, it took me less than 1/2 hr to replace my IPSEC testbed with an OpenVPN one using the new

These two networks can be the same, i.e. the VPN can be an extension of your local network, sharing the same subnet. That's one the many ways things can be set up. The same result can be achieved through other ways (e.g. Ethernet-level bridging). This does not contradict my earlier statement: a subnet can be *both* inside *and* outside the VPN, depending on the scenario. The Subnet