similar to: Roadwarriors behind unknown firewalls

hello, we use tinc for some permanent vpn tunnels with both sides are dynamic. in the last days we got following log entries on both ends: Receiving packet failed: Resource temporarily unavailable Receiving packet failed: Resource temporarily unavailable Receiving packet failed: Resource temporarily unavailable Receiving packet failed: Resource temporarily unavailable Rereading configuration

Hello All, I was just looking over how to set up the hosts files for Tinc and was wondering about how to handle Roadwarriors? It appears that the variable "Address=" must be set for individuals to connect to a host, right? Also, I am wondering about possibly using a private DNS+DHCP server combination that would allow the 10.x.x.x users to have their VPN ip resolved but this does

Hi again, which is the recommended procedure to get users (roadwarriors) with their windows laptops connected to the tinc daemon running on our firewall? What should we install on the laptop and how should we configure it? Thanks Andy Tinc: Discussion list about the tinc VPN daemon Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/ Tinc site: http://tinc.nl.linux.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

Finally resolved the problem, I'm actually impressed with the throughput over the tinc VPN! I encountered & resolved two problems during this installation. First, the config files need to go in different places, depending on whether you run tinc as a service or in the foreground from a Command Prompt running as Administrator (C:\Program Files\tinc\...) or if you are running tinc in the

Hello list, I wonder why tinc tries to resolve host names before connection even with configured (socks5) proxy which fails behind restrictive firewalls. Is there any "workaround"? Thanks in advance! Regards Uwe -------------- n?chster Teil -------------- Ein Dateianhang mit HTML-Daten wurde abgetrennt... URL:

On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 11:51:53AM +0100, Marcel Loesberg wrote: > I'm going to build a VPN and I want to use either Tinc or FreeS/WAN. > I've started building the VPN with FreeS/WAN and I find things are getting > rather complicated. > I looks like Tinc is much easier to configure but in the FAQ and in what I've > seen of the documentation so far there is no mention of

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 02:08:36PM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote: > > I wonder why tinc tries to resolve host names before connection even > > with configured (socks5) proxy which fails behind restrictive firewalls. > > [...] I'll try to change tinc so it will allow connections via SOCKS5 > even if it cannot resolve the hostname itself. I added the ability for tinc to

We are running tinc (v. 1.0.26) in switch mode with bmx6 (another mesh protocol) running on top of the tap0 interface on about 25 devices. The asymmetric routing of UDP packets is causing my firewall and I presume others to drop some of the packets, since there are no outbound SYN packets originating from the device running tinc. Is there any way to mitigate this issue besides enabling tcponly

Hello, Sorry if reposted. Original was auto rejected for not being subscribed to mailing list. I am making some systems that are going to be donated to different organizations and I want the kids to be able to share programs they write with each other on the different disk automatically securely. Can I network these systems without knowing individual ip's and not touching firewalls. I was

Hi! When I try to use tinc I get this message 'Cannot route packet: unknown type 0' when I try to ping or ssh to the box I'm connected to. Below is my setup: ifconfig tun device: -------------------- midkemia Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr FE:FD:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.6.1 Bcast:192.168.6.255 Mask:255.255.0.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1500

I'm stuck behind a corporate NAT that I obviously have absolutely no control over. The nice thing is that the firewall rules, AFAIK, are very nice. I've had tinc running before from behind nazi firewalls with no NAT. Been fiddling with tinc for many hours, but have been SOL. The local machine is the client (has ConnectTo in the conf), and remote is the server (has Listen in the conf).

Hi I'm trying to implement a scheme in which the nodes will have a direct UDP tunnel to each other. First, all nodes make connection with one public node, and then make connections with each other. And I came across the following problem: Remotely located nodes can establish a direct UDP connection, but the nodes that are in the same local network can not, and all traffic goes through the

Dear Tinc developer, I have some problems connecting to the other site of the VPN Here are my configuration files on pc1 Configuration files on pc2 /usr/local/etc/tinc/tinc.conf /usr/local/etc/tinc/tinc.conf Name = pc1 Name = pc2 TapDevice = /dev/tap0 TapDevice = /dev/tap0 PrivateKeyFile =

I have some tinc nodes behind a nat router. Which ipaddress should i use in de host file for the tinc nodes behind a nat router. The internet ipaddress or the private ipaddress ? Perry

Hi, I'm running some tinc clients behind a NAT (masquerading, Cisco Router) connecting to a host outside on a public IP in a different network. The tunnels get unstable every few minutes and I see packet loss when pinging the clients on their internal tunnel IPs from the host side. Before putting the tinc clients behind the NAT they were running on public IPs too (clients and host in

Hello Guus, thanks for Your fast reply. Does it mean only socks is affected and http proxy should work? If this is the case then this may be a temp. solution. Thanks and regards! Uwe Am 27.10.2015 14:08:36, schrieb Guus Sliepen: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:33:35PM +0000, Uwe Werler wrote: > > > I wonder why tinc tries to resolve host names before connection even > > with

Thanks Guus for answering all of these many emails. I now had a question as to if it is possible for something like this. Suppose that you have a Tinc VPN network made up of 4 nodes (A, B, C, D) and you want to dynamically add new nodes (E, F). How can this be done without having to re-start all of the nodes A-D? Based upon what I can see, each node condifuration files need to be modified

Thanks Guus for answering all of these many emails. I now had a question as to if it is possible for something like this. Suppose that you have a Tinc VPN network made up of 4 nodes (A, B, C, D) and you want to dynamically add new nodes (E, F). How can this be done without having to re-start all of the nodes A-D? Based upon what I can see, each node condifuration files need to be modified

Hi there I have the following setup Home - Main Tinc server with public IP running on PfSense work - tinc client running behind a CISCO ASA firewall with public IP running on Windows 10 offsite - tinc client running on tomato router behind a double NAT Home & offsite connect & i can see all PCs & devices & connect to them easily, on either side work to Home or offsite connects