similar to: need an example with 2 different nets

Hi, I have a tinc tunnel up and running. I connected 2 hosts with a net behind. Host A with static ip 1.2.3.4 with 192.168.1.0/24 Host B with dhcp connection with 192.168.2.0/24 the whole net is 192.168.0.0/16 I can reach at any time any host behind A from a host behind B. But I can reach a host behind B only, if traffic (keep alive like ping) from B goes continousliy from B to A. I am running

Hi, I have macosx 10.5.8 and Tunnelblick (openvpn) installed before. I have installed tinc using port and got version 1.0.11 (Jun 29 2010 15:10:51) now I have 2 problems: 1) the interface variable from the tinc.conf is not used, instead I have a tun0 interface (or tap0). 2) the tinc-up script seems to be fired too early as I get an error: ifconfig: interface /dev/tap0 does not exist when I run

Hi, here [1] is stated, that there is experimental support for ios. Is there somewhere a howto? Could not find one in the source... Is it only possible with a jail-broken device or even with a valid developer account? [1] http://www.tinc-vpn.org/platforms/ regards Henrik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, is tehre any news on the safari reload bug? Maybe a workaround? Mapstraction is sometimes not displayed on reload... regards Henrik

Hi everybody and merry Chrissy! I have smb listening to two interfaces and with tun0 this failed. Package was from Debian 7 - 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u4 # smbclient //10.9.8.1/public -Unot_a_user Enter not_a_user's password: Connection to 10.9.8.1 failed (Error NT_STATUS_CONNECTION_REFUSED) # smbclient //127.0.0.1/public -Unot_a_user Enter not_a_user's password: Domain=[WORKGROUP] OS=[Unix]

Hi - I've recently bought a mediatrix 1204 and have had a complete nightmare getting it up and running with an asterisk@home setup. I know this isn't a mediatrix list but I'm at my wits end and the support with this product is atrocious. (mine was even shipped with firmware that was incompatible with the win32 software it came with so I wasted a day trying to work out why the SNMP

Hi, I've one Sipura SPA2000 at home behind a linuxbox with two network adapters (eth0 for WAN and eth1 for LAN) doing NAT/DHCP: ___________ HOME _______________ ____OFFICE ____ SPA2000 <---> Linux Box <--> Asterisk Box 192.168.0.253 192.168.0.1 eth1 200.93.xxx.a 200.93.xxx.b eth0 My problem is when I try to call to any trunk or extention

from: Jeff Sloan <jeff_sloan at selinc.com> Based on commit: 9314e330 Setting UseDefaultAddress to TRUE uses invalid StationAddress and SubnetMask values. This is in a network with a local TFTP/MTFTP server. If the server is local, on the same subnet, UseDefaultAddress is set to false and the client ip and subnetmask are loaded, otherwise set UseDefaultAddress to TRUE. This is added to

>>> Setting UseDefaultAddress to TRUE uses invalid StationAddress and SubnetMask values. This is in a network with a local TFTP/MTFTP server. If the server is local, on the same subnet, UseDefaultAddress is set to false and the client ip and subnetmask are loaded, otherwise set UseDefaultAddress to TRUE. This is added to core_udp_connect and core_udp_sendto. Signed-off-by: Jeff

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 4:10 PM, <jeff_sloan at selinc.com> wrote: > Gene, > > I am very sorry. I did try the patch you suggested and had the same issue. > Then, I grabbed the latest patch on Patrick's git repo. That's the commit > that I listed. It was posted two days ago. > > I just noticed this on Patrick's repo: This branch is 6 commits ahead, 2 >

Gene, I am very sorry. I did try the patch you suggested and had the same issue. Then, I grabbed the latest patch on Patrick's git repo. That's the commit that I listed. It was posted two days ago. I just noticed this on Patrick's repo: This branch is 6 commits ahead, 2 commits behind geneC:master Jeff Sloan Software Engineer - Computing Systems Schweitzer Engineering

Hi, maybe I am blind, but how to start 2 tunnels on OSX? using a different device I get: /dev/tap1 is a Generic BSD tap device add net 192.168.1.0: gateway 10.9.99.4 route: writing to routing socket: File exists add net 10.150.0.0: gateway 10.9.99.4: File exists Can't bind to 0.0.0.0 port 655/tcp: Address already in use Unable to create any listening socket! Terminating using same device I

Jeff Sloan Software Engineer - Computing Systems Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc. (509) 336-2098 jeff_sloan at selinc.com From: Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com> To: Patrick Masotta <masottaus at yahoo.com>, jeff_sloan at selinc.com, Cc: For discussion of Syslinux and tftp-hpa <syslinux at zytor.com> Date: 09/12/2015 07:35 AM Subject: Re: [PATCH]

Dear all, I have a workgroup withonly windows 200 workstations in it and one Samba version 2.212 The network is bridged with a subnet mask 255.255.255.240 >From the WAN side you get: Internet > Modem/router > first NIC > firewall and out to LAN via second NIC Because the second NIC has no IP address the browsing is done by the first NIC avoiding that the information is not going

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:32 PM, <jeff_sloan at selinc.com> wrote: > from: Jeff Sloan <jeff_sloan at selinc.com> > > Based on commit: 9314e330 1) I don't see this commit ID. 2) Did you try commit ID 5186539 without this patch? If so, what did you observe? I believe I asked you to try a more current commit but never heard a response. -- -Gene

>>> I owe you the exact contents of the failing packets/buffers <<< I have seen the capture but I couldn't find anything wrong there; When you get a minute please assemble the rest of info; so far it's not clear what the symptoms really are. >>> but I am headed out the door to see if a doctor can keep me alive... (I think I have bubonic plague.) As soon as I

>>> What uEFI specification version does your system claim to be compliant with?? I'd like to read over the spec for the call to verify things. -- -Gene <<< I've tried to find the relationship between UseDefaultAddress and DHP relays but I couldn't find anything. The use of DHCP relays should be really transparent... Best, Patrick

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Patrick Masotta <masottaus at yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> > What uEFI specification version does your system claim to be compliant > with? I'd like to read over the spec for the call to verify things. > -- > -Gene > <<< > > I've tried to find the relationship between UseDefaultAddress and DHP relays >

>>> As noted in the reply to Matt Fleming's initial EFI networking implementation, I think some systems go stupid on UseDefaultAddress and AllowPromiscuous as true.? I just tested and saw no negative results from killing the codelines setting AllowPromiscuous in efi/udp.c on my machines. -- -Gene <<< This is good; BTW what was the rationale at the time for

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Patrick Masotta <masottaus at yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> > > As noted in the reply to Matt Fleming's initial EFI networking > implementation, I think some systems go stupid on UseDefaultAddress > and AllowPromiscuous as true. I just tested and saw no negative > results from killing the codelines setting AllowPromiscuous in >