similar to: strange tinc error with many nodes

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 100 matches similar to: "strange tinc error with many nodes"

2015 May 15
2
tinc 1.1 "Got ADD_EDGE ... which does not match existing entry"
Hallo, Another strange and difficult to understand thing - seems like all the easy bugs in 1.1 are gone ;) waehring (1.1) | +-------------------+--------------+ | | | vpnhub1 (1.1) igor (1.1) turing (1.0) | | | +-------------------+--------------+ | tokamak Whenever another node outside of the graph connects to vpnhub or igor
2015 May 15
0
tinc 1.1 "Got ADD_EDGE ... which does not match existing entry"
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:26:46PM +0200, Sven-Haegar Koch wrote: > Another strange and difficult to understand thing - seems like all the > easy bugs in 1.1 are gone ;) [...] > Got ADD_EDGE from aaa_vpnhub1 (1.2.3.4 port 443) for haegar_tokamak > -> igor which does not match existing entry (Local address 2.3.4.5 > != unknown) > > What I think may happen is that the
2015 May 15
2
tinc 1.1 "Got ADD_EDGE ... which does not match existing entry"
On Fri, 15 May 2015, Guus Sliepen wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:26:46PM +0200, Sven-Haegar Koch wrote: > > > Another strange and difficult to understand thing - seems like all the > > easy bugs in 1.1 are gone ;) > [...] > > Got ADD_EDGE from aaa_vpnhub1 (1.2.3.4 port 443) for haegar_tokamak > > -> igor which does not match existing entry (Local
2014 Sep 25
1
Tinc1.1pre10 on Windows 8.1?
Hello tincers, I run a small tinc mesh using version 1.1pre10 on mostly linux (debian) hosts. In the past, I was able to successfully join my windows machine to the tinc network, when I was running an earlier version of tinc (throughout the mesh). However, with 1.1pre10, I have had no success. Is this a known error, a misconfiguration on my part, or some other issue? I currently have no tinc-up
2018 Dec 18
0
subnet flooded with lots of ADD_EDGE request
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 02:36:18PM +0800, Amit Lianson wrote: > We're suffering from sporadic network blockage(read: unable to ping > other nodes) with 1.1-pre17. Before upgrading to the 1.1-pre release, > the same network blockage also manifested itself in a pure 1.0.33 > network. > > The log shows that there are a lot of "Got ADD_EDGE from nodeX >
2017 Jan 13
2
tinc behind CISCO ASA 5506
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
2012 Sep 14
1
Basic configuration problem
Hello, I have been reading through the documentation and trying to set up a very small VPN as a test for a larger rollout that I would like to complete in the future but cannot get this working. The configuration seems like it should be relatively simple, so I'm most likely missing something basic but I just cannot see what I'm doing wrong. At the moment I am trying to get this working
2016 Nov 10
1
static configuration
Hello, I am tying to create tinc vpn for the ~1000 nodes and was thinking why meta connections are needed at all if I only need static configuration where every node knows addresses of other hosts and due to the amount of traffic any indirect connections will not work, so DirectOnly=yes is a must and then passing around routing information is not needed, right? Currently I have 10 nodes
2003 Jan 27
1
Bogus data received from ...
Hello, I'm trying to test a tinc vpn between two Linux hosts on the same ethernet. If I start tinc on both sides as 'tinc -n test --bypass-security --debug=5' I can ping both machines from each other and tcpdump shows that the packets pass through the tun-device created by tinc. Connection from 192.168.192.17 port 32852 Sending ID to (null) (192.168.192.17 port 32852): 0 helix 17
2004 Nov 22
1
Tinc on OsX, partial success
I have now got the tinc demons (on network OFFICES) on BranchB and BranchA talking to each other, see below for log from BranchB. For some trouble shouting issues relating to OsX see at the end of my e-mail. However, I have not yet achieved the network connectivity/routing that I would like. The aim is: BranchB is a laptop I would like to connect it (via tinc) to my office network, so that
2007 Apr 30
1
Windows to Linux - ping-bug?
Hello! I have encountered a bug using tincd with Microsoft Windows: Below you'll find my Setup and my Logs. In short, i do the following: 1. office running tincd 1.0.7 and waiting for connections (no ConnectTo, but this does not resolve the issue) 2. the supporter starts up tincd 1.0.7 on windows (native) 3. ping from windows ("support") to the office: Here the error occours:
2005 Apr 08
1
TrustedNodes option in TINC
Hi, We want to deploy a tinc VPN, with more than 50 sites connected all arround the world. But we cannot trust all our sites with the same level, so the tinc solution (automatic full mesh) is "too automatic" for us : *any* node can add a new node which will be connected directly to others. A solution could be TLS (signing public keys), but create a PKI is another issue for us.
2014 Aug 06
1
State graph of UDP data-connections
Hi, I'm using Tinc in a scenario where round-trip time matters. I've multiple nodes behind firewalls (with and without NAT) and a single public server node. How do I can get the current state of UDP data-connections between my firewall'd nodes? According to the docs: - 'dump connections' give me all TCP meta-connections of the current node - 'dump edges' give me
2018 Dec 11
3
subnet flooded with lots of ADD_EDGE request
Hello, We're suffering from sporadic network blockage(read: unable to ping other nodes) with 1.1-pre17. Before upgrading to the 1.1-pre release, the same network blockage also manifested itself in a pure 1.0.33 network. The log shows that there are a lot of "Got ADD_EDGE from nodeX (192.168.0.1 port 655) which does not match existing entry" and it turns out that the mismatches
2013 Jul 21
2
Possible improvements to LocalDiscovery
LocalDiscovery works by sending some of the MTU probe packets to the broadcast address (255.255.255.255). If the destination node receives one of these packets, it will update its UDP cache and reply, thus the two nodes will start using their local addresses to communicate. Now, I see two problems with this approach: - In case the two nodes are behind the same NAT and can reach other *but*
2010 Sep 17
1
friend of a friend type darknets
Hi! here a little patch for darknet functionality, i hope it does what its intended for sufficiently ... but it seems to work :). what should it do? imagine your friend-network. A trusts B and C. B trusts D and E, D trust F, C trusts G. All trust relationships are mutal A <---> C <---> G ^ \ \-----> B <---> D <---> F ^ \ \---> E
2017 Oct 10
1
UDP connections on tinc
Hello, We are using tinc 1.0.24 with switch mode. Some questions regarding to the UDP connections on tinc. As far as I understand tinc is building meta connections with "ConnectTo", and "ADD_EDGE" packet. With the help of EDGE info two nodes who don't have direct meta connection are able to communicate through direct UDP connection. I understand we can dump the meta
2017 Feb 27
2
multithreading, subnet weights, logging info
Multiple questions here, thinking one email is less annoying (sorry if not). Running tinc 1.0.31 1. Could anyone give an explanation (or point to documentation) of the differences between Connections, Nodes, and Edges in the USR1/2 logging, and the various information in there? 2. Connections appears to match the list of ConnectTo hosts in the main config file -- does this mean this node can
2017 Mar 13
0
multithreading, subnet weights, logging info
Hello, Bumping this in the hope someone can help me. If all the questions are too much, could anyone answer #3: Is there any way to have multiple tinc daemons active-active advertising the same subnet with traffic distributed between the two? thanks On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Ryan, Justin <justin.ryan at nytimes.com> wrote: > Multiple questions here, thinking one email is less
2014 Sep 28
1
Proposals for UDP information transport over the metagraph
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,