similar to: Don't deprecate TCPOnly please!

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13433 Bug ID: 13433 Summary: out_of_memory in receive_sums on large files Product: rsync Version: 3.1.3 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: core Assignee: wayned at samba.org Reporter:

Hi, I've successfully running tinc1.0pre4 between two locations on SuSE Linux 7.1 in a special masquerading Firewall environment, so that I'm using the TCPonly keyword in the host files to get a connection. Otherwise I would get the message 'Received UDP packet on port 655 from unknown source <ipaddress in hex:port>'. After upgrading to 1.0pre5 I'm getting this message

Hi there! Today I've tried a FTP connection (me with TCPOnly send file to another no TCPOnly), but the upload bandwidth was about 20 kb/s, while connecting to the other directly (I upload a file to him via FTP) the connection was about 5 times faster... what's wrong? thanks

Hi there! Today I've tried a FTP connection (me with TCPOnly send file to another no TCPOnly), but the upload bandwidth was about 20 kb/s, while connecting to the other directly (I upload a file to him via FTP) the connection was about 5 times faster... what's wrong? thanks

If the concern is more about the reliability instead of throughput, should I add TCPonly = yes in the host configuration to make the VPN runs on TCP?

The only time I can think off, that you’ll *want* to use TCP, is when UDP doesn’t work through the firewalls/NATting. > On 18 Jun 2017, at 14:53 , Bright Zhao <startryst at gmail.com> wrote: > > If the concern is more about the reliability instead of throughput, should I add TCPonly = yes in the host configuration to make the VPN runs on TCP? The problem with TCP, is that TCP,

> On 18 Jun 2017, at 15:44 , Bright Zhao <startryst at gmail.com> wrote: > > I agree with the in-effective of TCP transmission, but I wonder if the the UDP packet is dropped, the tinc VPN itself wouldn’t retransmit, and if the upper level application doesn’t handle the packet loss well, will this be the problem? > > Or the upper level application have very limited tolerance

Guus, [tinc version 1.0.24] Consider the case where you have the following setup client - fw - server The client and server successfully setup a tunnel and UDP communication starts to happen. Then the client shuts up and the server only needs to send data to the client if the remote tool accesses the client?s UI. If the firewall times out the NAT UDP hole, the server has a problem: The UDP

I agree with the in-effective of TCP transmission, but I wonder if the the UDP packet is dropped, the tinc VPN itself wouldn’t retransmit, and if the upper level application doesn’t handle the packet loss well, will this be the problem? Or the upper level application have very limited tolerance to packet loss(like RDP application, I guess if the packet loss go to certain threshold, the connection

Hi, I upgraded some of my Tinc nodes from 1.0.8 recently and found something strange. All of a sudden, the vpn would not work as a full-mesh. Certain nodes were not contactable. I re-generated my rsa-keys, and checked my configuration. My vpn uses the following in tinc.conf, as I am routing both ipv4 and v6. === name = node1 mode = switch AddressFamily = any PMTU = 1280 PMTUDiscovery = yes

Hello all, There is still a use for netbeui (non-routed protocol) in the network. If you are using a VPN client that does not allow split tunneling, you can still access printers on another local system with netbeui. I would like to remove the windows system and have my print shares on my Linux system with Samba. Is all consideration of netbeui within the Linux/Samba environment gone?

Hello, first of all - thanks for creating tinc! It has become an invaluable tool for me to securely join a multitude of servers and clients through a VPN. Today, I was trying to compile Tinc 1.0.12 on my newly purchased x86 Linux-based QNAP TS-239 Pro NAS device (Kernel 2.6.30.6). The configure-script finishes without error (see attached config.log). However, configure.status fails with

Hello I use XEN 3.0 in debian sarge. I have a domU1 for routing and firewall. This domU1 use 2 network interfaces which is on a bridge ''gate'' and the other on bridge ''lan''. dumU2 use one interface (eth0) on bridge ''lan''. Then I make a ping out of domU2 to www.debian.de so I get no answer. The name isn''t resolved. A ping to IP of

Hello list, we have been running tinc to connect multiple nodes without problems for quite some time now. Thanks for this great piece of software! Our configuration is as follows: Two "supernodes" A and B running the tinc daemon are publicly reachable from the internet. Node A is running Linux and has a static public IP address. Node B is running Windows with port forwarding

Hii, Can anybody help me, I don't know how to print the "median". Below is my code snipplet... x <-read.table(file="D:/Uni/Diplom/Diplom/Grafiken/R/BATMAN/Kabel/Batman1hop/Standardabweichung__output_30_1_Kabel(30m)_b.txt") png(filename = "D:/Grafiken/R/Standardabweichung/Kopie.png", width = 640, height = 480,pointsize = 12, bg = "white", res =

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3020 Summary: Mac OS X/Darwin incorrectly shows read sockets ready when they aren't Product: rsync Version: 2.6.5 Platform: PPC OS/Version: Mac OS X Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo:

Hi there, I'm trying to set tinc and I get the following messages: Sep 6 13:31:33 leibniz tinc.acvpn[12352]: tincd 1.0.1 (Aug 14 2003 15:09:44) starting, debug level 0 Sep 6 13:31:33 leibniz tinc.acvpn[12352]: /dev/net/tun is a Linux tun/tap device (tun mode) Sep 6 13:31:33 leibniz tinc.acvpn[12352]: Script tinc-up exited with non-zero status 126 Sep 6 13:31:33 leibniz tinc.acvpn[12352]:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Anton Korobeynikov schreef: > Hello, Koen. > >> So my question is: How should I build llvm and llvm-gcc4 to have it cross-compile from x86 >> to ARM/EABI? > Well, just supply appropriate --host/--target options to configure. To llvm or llvm-gcc4? > I haven't tried ARM, but this definitely works for crosscompiling from

Hello, Koen. > So my question is: How should I build llvm and llvm-gcc4 to have it cross-compile from x86 > to ARM/EABI? Well, just supply appropriate --host/--target options to configure. I haven't tried ARM, but this definitely works for crosscompiling from linux to mingw32. Please also note, that you'll need native (=arm) tools (binutils, libcheaders, etc) during gcc build

Hi folks, I'm running CentOS 6.6 on my workstation. There I have a user meikel, and its home directory /home/meikel ist stored on a samba share on a server which also runs CentOS 6.6. In the very beginning I added the mount options for that home directory into the /etc/fstab file which led to some problems, so I set up autofs for mounting the home directory. The autofs seems to work for