similar to: wonder about redirect-gateway subnet/switch-mode

Hi all I feel like I should know the answer to this question, like I read it someplace sometime, but it evades me right now. It's also an opportunity to say hello to the list and many thanks for writing and supporting tinc vpn! We make great use of it at rhizomatica. So, Let's take this example setup. I have two tinc nodes (A and B) behind a firewall NodeA and NodeB have 192.168.1.2

Hi Guus, I've been a huge fan of the GraphDumpFile parameter in tinc -- it certainly beats sending USR2 to tincd, and ploughing through syslog to figure out which nodes are connected. Could I request that GraphDumpFile dumps a little more data to the file, namely, the subnet; changing the output file from (for example): digraph { nodeA [label = "nodeA"];

I have an rsync server running on nodeA and a client, nodeB. I am attempting to do a sync/copy from the local machine, nodeB, to the rsync server, nodeA. The following line from the rsync man page makes it look like this is relatively simple: for copying from the local machine to a remote rsync server. This is invoked when the destination path contains a :: separator or a rsync:// URL. I have

I have 2 nodes nodeA and nodeB I'm using tinc 1.1pre11 -- nodeA(fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1) : $ ip -6 route fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1 dev tun0 proto kernel metric 256 fd80:2015:2105:adcd::/64 dev tun0 metric 1024 fe80::/64 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 $ ping6 fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1 PING fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1(fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1:

llseek requires ocfs2 inode lock for updating the file size in SEEK_END. because the file size maybe update on another node. if it not . after call llseek in SEEK_END. the position is old. this bug can be reproduce the following scenario: at first ,we dd a test fileA,the file size is 10k. on NodeA: --------- 1) open the test fileA, lseek the end of file. and print the position. 2) close the test

AFAIK, and my setups thus far, unless you have NodeB’s public key in Nodes C-Z (with NodeB’s public/reachable IP configured in Nodes C-Z) *and* you have the PublicKeys for NodesC-z configured in NodeB, there is no way that NodesC-Z will be able to establish a connection directly with NodeB, and it’ll have to forward via NodeA (or any other node that do have a direct connection established with

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:03:30AM +0200, Keith Whyte wrote: > I have two tinc nodes (A and B) behind a firewall > > NodeA and NodeB have 192.168.1.2 and 192.168.1.3 assigned on an internal > LAN, and they both have different public IP addresses forwarded to them, > port 655 udp/tcp > > I would like any given node in the C-Z group to be able to find Node B > on it's

Dear all Recently, i did some work to test small files performance for gnfsv3 transport. Following is my scenario. #####environment##### ==2 cluster nodes(nodeA/nodeB)== each is equipped with E5-2650*2, 128G memory and 10GB*2 netcard nodeA: 10.254.3.77 10.128.3.77 nodeB: 10.254.3.78 10.128.3.78 ==2 stress nodes(clientA/clientB)== each is equipped with E5-2650*2, 128G memory and 10GB*2

You have a typo in your routes: fd80:2015:2105:adcd::/6 abcd vs. adcd On 21 May 2015, at 19:35, Martin <martinmoen at gmail.com<mailto:martinmoen at gmail.com>> wrote: I have 2 nodes nodeA and nodeB I'm using tinc 1.1pre11 -- nodeA(fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1) : $ ip -6 route fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1 dev tun0 proto kernel metric 256 fd80:2015:2105:adcd::/64 dev tun0 metric 1024

I've been trying out IPv6 networking with tinc and noticed that it will not route smaller segments than /48 If I try to run ip -6 route add aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd::/64 dev tun0 I get network unreachable However if I run ip -6 route add aaaa:bbbb:cccc::/48 dev tun0 it works fine Is this is a limitation in tinc or the kernel network stack itself? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

hi guys I have a kvm quest & two nodes. a kvm guest on nodeA and IPaddr2 on nodeB(at this time) nodeA & nodeB comprise a HA cluster now... - nodeA can ping IPaddr2 IP - nodeB can ping kvm guest IP - kvm guest can get to nodeB's IP but* Only a bit non-common bit in my setup is: - both nodeA & nodeB be interfaces which are relevant to the subnet on which it operates are

From: Xue jiufei <xuejiufei at huawei.com> Subject: ocfs2: dlm_request_all_locks() should deal with the status sent from target node dlm_request_all_locks() should deal with the status sent from target node if DLM_LOCK_REQUEST_MSG is sent successfully, or recovery master will fall into endless loop, waiting for other nodes to send locks and DLM_RECO_DATA_DONE_MSG to me. NodeA

dlm_request_all_locks() should deal with the status sent from target node if DLM_LOCK_REQUEST_MSG is sent successfully, or recovery master will fall into endless loop, waiting for other nodes to send locks and DLM_RECO_DATA_DONE_MSG to me. NodeA NodeB selected as recovery master

llseek requires ocfs2 inode lock for updating the file size in SEEK_END. because the file size maybe update on another node. if it not . after call llseek in SEEK_END. the position is old. this bug can be reproduce the following scenario: at first ,we dd a test fileA,the file size is 10k. on NodeA: --------- 1) open the test fileA, lseek the end of file. and print the position. 2) close the test

Hi, Guus I did some test regarding the points you mentioned below, and yes, you’re right, but some of points may need further adjusted: 1. The destination of IPv4 wouldn’t be changed, Yes I agree, that’s the goal and final destination for the communication. But during the path, it may be encapsulated into another packet(tunnel mode), where the outside IP header is the physical address, but the

Trying to understand "redirect-gateway" option Is this url info correct for the current Tinc 1.0.35 version? .../tinc-vpn.org/examples/redirect-gateway What is the script? /etc/tinc/myvpn/hosts/server-up Is it really a extra bit to be added to,/etc/tinc/myvpn/tinc-up If I read and apply the instructions to my routed setup, then all I need to add isip route add 0.0.0.0/1 dev $INTERFACE

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Keith Whyte <keith at rhizomatica.org> wrote: > Is there a way to force NodeA or NodeB to "advertise" it's public IP to > the rest of the tinc network, or did I miss something really obvious? the config files can use DNS names, right? Have the nodes that you want to advertise their public IP addresses sign up with Dyndns or similar,

I have been using shorewall and freeswan successfully for 3 or more years now. But they have all been using the Linux 2.4 kernel. My current configuration is (as the title suggests) using SuSE 9.1 which has a 2.6.5 kernel and freeswan 2.0.4 built-in. After much reading and a lot of trial and error, I did get this combination to work with Shorewall 2.0.9. It is happily talking to an older Mandrake

Hello, I'm trying to integrate HAST to NAS4Free (FreeBSD 9.1-RC3). Now I have created version 9.1.0.1.531. http://sourceforge.net/projects/nas4free/files/NAS4Free-9.1.0.1/9.1.0.1.531/ Basic CARP + HAST + iSCSI target setup can be done, but very frequently I get hastctl hang when called: /sbin/hastctl status /sbin/hastctl dump Is it better for this method not to call from a script? or

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 02:15:36PM +0800, Bright Zhao wrote: > 1. The destination of IPv4 wouldn’t be changed, Yes I agree, that’s the goal and final destination for the communication. But during the path, it may be encapsulated into another packet(tunnel mode), where the outside IP header is the physical address, but the inner destination remain unchanged, and I think Tinc encapsulates into