similar to: PMTU Discovery Question

Dear Guus, while improving the PMTU Discovery algorithm, I found the following behavior in the method "send_udppacket": 1) The code checks, whether the data size is smaller than the MTU, thus if it fits into a single UDP packet. If not, you send the packet via TCP. 2) The data is compressed, changing its size. (Usually, making it smaller, but that's not always

We have an issue with some customers who refuse to accept ICMP traffic to their mail servers. It seems that they have put Mordac, preventer of information services in charge of their firewall policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_characters_in_Dilbert#Mordac). My mail logs are showing that customers who specifically disallow ICMP traffic have many "Connection Reset"

Hi all, I have two nodes, connected to a switch, using Tinc 1.1 from git. They connect each other with sptps, and to other nodes in the Internet with old protocol because they have Tinc 1.0. There is no problem with remote nodes, but between my 2 local nodes, they see 1518 PMTU. But local network is 1500 MTU !!! So nodes can ping each other but larger data does not go. test1=sllm1 test2=sllm2

Dear Guus, I've attached my first git commit to your repository. It does not contain any new functionalities, but it is a first try to interact with your git copy. Could you please verify, if you can push this commit to your repository? If it works, I'll send you the rest of my work, which contains: 1) some small improvements in logging (using flags instead of counters) 2) the

Hi everyone, you can find the current version of my enhanced tinc using subversion: svn://tardyon.mon-clan.de/tinc I allowed anonymous read access, so feel free to download the sources. Unfortunately, my enhancements are based on a rather old git-checkout from Guus. The version should run under windows and Debian/Ubuntu. Best, Daniel -----Original Message----- From: folkert [mailto:folkert

+0100 From: Daniel Schall <tinc-devel at mon-clan.de> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 17:00:35 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Improved PMTU discovery diff --git a/lib/dropin.c b/lib/dropin.c index 52fb5b8..2b803b1 100644 --- a/lib/dropin.c +++ b/lib/dropin.c @@ -165,8 +165,8 @@ #endif =20 #ifdef HAVE_MINGW -int usleep(long usec) { - Sleep(usec / 1000); - return 0; -} +//int usleep(long usec) { +//

--- doc/tinc.conf.5.in | 3 +++ src/linux/device.c | 7 +++++++ 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/tinc.conf.5.in b/doc/tinc.conf.5.in index 2bfd5fe..01f7f81 100644 --- a/doc/tinc.conf.5.in +++ b/doc/tinc.conf.5.in @@ -255,6 +255,9 @@ a lookup if your DNS server is not responding. This does not affect resolving hostnames to IP addresses from the host

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 04:41:30PM +0200, Florent B wrote: > I have MTU problems when all these conditions are true: > - a client is running Ubuntu (ICMP messages about PMTUd are ignored on > it by default) I have no experience with Ubuntu, but I find it hard to believe it would block ICMP Fragmentation Needed packets out of the box. > - a client is accessing us from a particular

While working on SPTPS UDP relaying I realized that there is one issue I didn't account for, which is that the sending node only knows the PMTU to the first relay node. It doesn't know the PMTU of the entire relay path beyond the first hop, because the relay nodes don't provide their own PMTU information over the metaprotocol. Now, in the legacy protocol this is not really an issue,

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:12:40AM +0200, Florent B wrote: > > I have no experience with Ubuntu, but I find it hard to believe it would > > block ICMP Fragmentation Needed packets out of the box. > > I can confirm you that this is the case. Ubuntu ignores those ICMP > packets... :( (rp_filter settings) > > You can see it here : https://mellowd.co.uk/ccie/?p=5662

Hello, Linux has a recvmmsg() system call which allows to achieve several recvfrom() at a time. The patch below makes tinc use it (patch against 1.1-pre11). Basically the patch turns the handle_incoming_vpn_data variables into arrays (of size 1 when recvmmsg is not available, and thus compiled the same as before), and makes the code index into the arrays. You may want to use interdiff -w

Hi, I've got a relatively simple tinc setup. I've got two "servers" that are on the public internet that act as routers for three "clients" that are behind NATs. Those servers are called aaaaa and bbbbb the clients are xxxxx, yyyyy and zzzzz Unfortunatly the servers have problems accepting a connection from the clients syslog on aaaaa: Sep 29 18:28:58 schuerrer

Hi Guus and List, Since the CVE-2013-1428 was announced, I followed the recommendation to update my windows machines to tinc1.1pre7. I've had connectivity issues since upgrading. I've done some debugging but I can't figure out when or why its happening. All machines on the network are running Windows 7 or Windows 2008R2 Enterprise server and tinc 1.1pre7. I've got one master

Hi, I believe I have found a bug with regard to the LocalDiscovery feature. This is on tinc-1.1pre7 between two Windows nodes. Steps to reproduce: - Get two nodes talking using LocalDiscovery (e.g. put them on the same LAN behind a NAT with no metaconnection to each other) - Make one ping the other. Expected result: - The two nodes should ping each other without any packet loss, hopefully at

Am 23.06.2020 08:43, schrieb Luca Bertoncello: And another thing, I discovered right now... > Could you suggest me something to restrict the problem? > Currently, I think the problem can be: > > 1) on Asterisk > 2) on my Gateway/Firewall A couple of years ago I added this entry in my firewall: /sbin/iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,RST SYN -j TCPMSS

Would you mind repeating the test with canreinvite=no set for all you phones and mobile phones? What is your upload bitrate? Is it guaranteed? I would try also to test the PMTU: Try: ping -M do -s 2000 ${ip address of the sip server} You should receive icmp asking for lowering the packet size. The LTE phones could have lower MTU and thus overcome PMTU problem. Marek 2020-06-22 21:48

Hi all, I am currently deploying tinc as an alternative to OpenVPN. My setup includes a lot of nodes and some of them are sitting together behind the same router on the same network segment. (E.g. connected to the same switch.) I noticed, that those nodes do never talk directly to each other via their private ip-addresses, but instead use the NATed address they got from the router.

Well this has had me stumped for days now. For months I've been using tinc in TCPOnly because I always received the unknown host error when using UDP. On Monday, i set the flag IndirectData = yes in my host files, and removed the TCPOnly line. Initially, everything worked great. My throughput increased from 600KB/sec to 2MB/sec between the sites. However, I also did some testing with

Aloha! I am new to tinc and I like to figure out my own issues before asking but I am not sure of my next step here. I am not sure if the problem is the VPN configuration or in my network. I will try to be as through as possible. I have two computers that are CentOS with the latest tinc from their respective repositories. Server A is behind a Sophos XG and Server B is behind a Ubiquiti Edge

Am 23.06.2020 09:28, schrieb Marek Greško: Hi > if you need clampmss then it is highly probable there is a PMTU > discovery problem. The clampmss does not work for UDP. Is there a way to check if I have this problem? > I probably counted the size incorrectly. So you are able to ping with > size 1464 and not with 1466. How about trying same ping sizes from the > internet towards