similar to: Questions about multiple Tinc daemons

Hello there, I was hoping that maybe one of you guys could help me out with a problem I'm experiencing with tinc1.0pre7. First, I'll start with my configuration, after that I'll explain my problem. Background ---------- This is a simple, client-server situation on a private network. Both machines run the same Debian Woody 3.0 testing installation and both have identical packages

Hi Tinc Mailing-Group, Having set up the kernel correctly, and got tinc running successfully, I am now trying to get two VPNs running at once. Hence I need to have two ethertap devices ( /dev/tap0 and /dev/tap1 ). The first tap0 device was created thus: mknod -m 600 /dev/tap0 c 36 16 chown 0.0 /dev/tap0 The second tap1 device was created too: mknod -m 600 /dev/tap1 c 36 17 chown 0.0 /dev/tap1

Hello list, Please don''t shoot me. I know I''m doing something with bonding that bonding wasn''t made for. I just want to give it a try. I want a simple mechanism to have a failover on a 24Mbit line to a 2Mbit line in case the 24Mbit line goes down. Between A and B there are two lines: a 24Mbit and a 2Mbit. I use two OpenVPN tunnels with tap devices: +-- tap0 (A)---

Dear Tinc Experts, I have been struggling for some time now, with Tinc pre3, and firewall rulesets and routing. I did once manage to get Tinc to work okay in a test-bed environment. I then tried to set it up for a 'real-life' setup and cannot get it to work properly. My real-life setup looks like this: Network A: 192.168.1.0 / 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.7 tap1 device gateway >

Hello. I am trying to get multi paths running, i.e I want to specify 2 paths from a particular node to another. To test this, I am setting up the following scenario: I create 2 tap devices tap0 = 10.1.1.1/32 netmask 255.255.255.0 tap1 = 10.2.2.2/32 netmask 255.255.255.0 I then issue the route command: ip route add 10.3.3.3/32 nexthop via 10.1.1.2 nexthop via 10.2.2.3 The route table

Hi, it seems that ipconfig has a problem if multiple devices are up and connected to the same network. It seems that it uses the wrong socket/device index to compare it to incoming packet. To be more precise, the packet gets discarded in do_pkt_recv as the ifindex from state differs always from the incoming packet To reproduce create two tap devices: $ sudo tunctl -u uli -t tap0

Hello All, I am trying to implement OpenVPN on Fedora core Linux 3 with the latest pathces installed. This server is used only as firewall/internet gateway/proxy/VPN server, with kernel 2.6.1-1.27.FC3 and kernel 2.6.1-1.27.FC3 SMP It has two NIC''s eth0 (10.0.0.150) connected to ADSL, eth1 (192.168.3.12) connected to the local network. I use shorewall 2.4 on this machine. I like to test

Hello! I've a problem with tinc-up on Debian Woody (tinc 1.0pre7): router:/etc/tinc/vpn# /etc/init.d/tinc start Starting tinc daemons: vpn. router:/etc/tinc/vpn# tail /var/log/syslog Aug 23 03:25:26 router tinc.vpn[503]: /dev/tap0 is a Linux ethertap device Aug 23 03:25:26 router modprobe: modprobe: Can't locate module tap0 Aug 23 03:25:27 router last message repeated 4 times Aug 23

Hi! Me and two friends are trying to get a VPN working, but we cant get routing between two tunnels. This is how it looks, all servers (192.168.*.1) are running IP Masquerade to enable the other computers behind them to access the internet. Both elayne and glenn are connecting to melc, and the tunnel between melc and glenn are running TCPOnly because that glenn doesnt have a public IP (it's

Ok. I''m knocking down one problem at a time. I''ve managed to figure out how to bridge my tap0 and my eth1 with br0. This is good stuff. But if I have shorewall running, I can''t ping the local network at all. If I have shorewall not running, I can ping the local network. Here is my setup. Firewall/NAT box: eth0 - DHCP from cable provider eth1 -

Hi all. I would need to use a single physical interface on a Linux box to manage two different IP addresses (belonging to two separate logical subnets) with two different MAC address. (I need to emulate te presence of two separate physical interfaceses for a PC on the same LAN, at layer 2 and layer 3). Is it possible to use the linux ethernet bridging code and two tap interfaces for this

Hi everybody ! I'll try to explain first what I would like to do with the functionalities of tap and bridge interfaces, qemu, some isos(I used slax(slackware live cd)) and the forwarding mechanisms of the Linux kernel. I'd like to simulate such a network: Internet | (eth0:@public address) * host * | br0 (@192.168.0.254)

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs > exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation > of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since > any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest > transmission. Consider the following

On 03/13/2014 09:28 AM, Jason Wang wrote: > On 03/10/2014 04:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:28:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >>>> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation >>>> of both host and guest. But it was too

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 03:11:21PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > On 02/26/2014 02:32 PM, Qin Chuanyu wrote: > >On 2014/2/26 13:53, Jason Wang wrote: > >>On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>>On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > >>>>We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:28:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs > exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation > of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since > any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest > transmission. Consider the following

On 2014/2/26 13:53, Jason Wang wrote: > On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >>> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation >>> of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some

This setup is rather complex, so apologies for the length of this mail. I'm also not at all sure where my problem is, so again I apologise if this is the wrong place to ask. I have a raspberry pi sitting in a remote office (hostname 'pi' below), a VPS hosted on someone's cloud (hostname 'vps' below) and my local laptop (hostname 'laptop'). The remote office then