similar to: Tinc CPU usage

Hi, We have a tinc network of about ~200 hosts and in the full mesh configuration we've had a lot of problems with the edge propagation storms taking the entire network down. Recently we had a setup with a small number of "hubs" to which all the other nodes connected to, which limited the number of meta connections, but that didn't help much with the edge propagation issues.

Hi, we use a tinc network of about 400 nodes, all of them linux servers, partly in different datacenters (but generally low latency). Usually this is working very well (for weeks without a problem). >From time to time the whole network goes down though. This happened when we restarted a larger number of servers or when there was a connectivity issue between datacenters or some (short)

*You should repeat this for all nodes you ConnectTo, or which ConnectTo you. However, remember that you do not need to ConnectTo all nodes in the VPN; it is only necessary to create one or a few meta-connections, after the connections are made tinc will learn about all the other nodes in the VPN, and will automatically make other connections as necessary. * The above is from the docs. Assuming

Thank you for the helpful advice. We will try to group the servers with different ConnectTo servers first. If this does not help we will look at the TunnelServer solution. Just to make sure we understand TunnelServer correctly: do you need to specify every host as ConnectTo that the host should be able to communicate with or is it sufficient to just provide the hosts files? Thanks, Hendrik

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 01:04:31PM +0200, Hendrik Schumacher wrote: > From time to time the whole network goes down though. This happened when we > restarted a larger number of servers or when there was a connectivity issue > between datacenters or some (short) maintenance on the network > infrastructure. The problem was already described in the mailing list (for > example here:

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

Hi, Etienne I took a look for the below host configuration parameter (IndirectData), the default is no. For the below example: A ConnectTo B, B ConnectTo C: If IndirectData = no (default), then A wouldn’t establish direct connection with C, but will be forwarded by B. If IndirectData = yes, then A will try to establish direct connection with C, even though A don’t have the statement of

Folks, We have a setup where each mobile node connects with 1 or more tinc instances (over different links) to a central node. tinc is running in switch mode. The link is chosen by setting the IP address on the active link's interface, and the central node sees this after the first packet on the link, and moves the MAC address to a different 'ethernet port' (link). This works really

Hello, Here is a patch for protocol_subnet.c with two modifications : - in tunnelserver mode, tinc must check subnets in the ".../hosts/owner" config file, not in "c->config_tree" (which is the configuration of the meta-connection from which we receive the ADD_SUBNET message). - this checking can be made before the check of the owner, especially before any

Guus, Below a segment of a log file. I am trying to analyse why the satellite link goes down and up all the time (sometimes 10 to 15 times an hour, sometimes not for a day. My guess is that this indicates packet loss on the satelllite link and tinc not really recovering from that. Where I inserted an empty line the log basically stopped and was silent for I guess for 14 minutes? Would setting

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:29:59PM +0000, Guillermo Bisheimer wrote: > One more thing. I can run two tinc daemons one for each group, but I sill > need to communicate clients from one group to the other. > > Clients from group 2 (admin group) need to reach clients from group 1 > (remote server group), but clients from group 1 must not be able to reach > each other nor the

Hi, I´m using Tinc for several years, but I didn´t fix a performance problem. There a about 20 nodes in this network. Master: 10.0.0.12 (dedicated host in a datacenter, debian, 100mBit port) tinc.conf: Name = TincKnoten12 AddressFamily = ipv4 Interface = tun ProcessPriority=high mode = router #DirectOnly = no Compression=0 PMTUDiscovery = yes #IndirectData = yes #ReplayWindow = 64 #ConnectTo

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

Dear all, I like tinc and am using it widely in the company I work for. Currently I'm experimenting with 'switch' mode & have a problem with packets being forwarded. I've tried possible combinations with next parameters: a) Broadcast = direct b) Forwarding = kernel c) DirectOnly = yes From the documentation, it looks like (a) should be enough to stop packet forwarding

Dear All, We are trying the Tinc invites to let nodes join the network. This is working as described but we want to push some configuration for some nodes but this seemed not to be working. What is working is the following invite: Name = test_invite NetName = test_VPN ConnectTo = test_hub01 Ifconfig = 172.16.1.4/24 Subnet = 172.16.1.4

Hi All, I've been playing around with TINC and like what I've seen so far. I wanted a TINC tunnel like this, where I have a server on the Internet with a public IPv4 address as my TINC server. Then I can have clients connect to it and see each other except that the client at a customer site would allow me to route behind it so I could see hosts on site beyond my device on premise. I do

Hello, I am using tinc in a lot of contexts related to servers and general infrastructure. Recently another potential use-case appeared: providing a VPN for remote devices (located at customer sites and maybe not exclusively under our control). The tinc configuration allows to restrict the direct traffic between such remote devices easily: DirectOnly = yes Forwarding = off TunnelServer = no

thanks, but i was able to make it work based on some suggestion on tomato shibby forums. Regards Ramesh On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Guus Sliepen <guus at tinc-vpn.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 06:53:07PM +0000, Guillermo Bisheimer wrote: > > > I've setup a Tinc VPN for a bunch of nodes divided in two groups: > > > > Group 1: > > IP Range

Well i currently try to set up tinc between two hosts, one with normal dsl connection one behind some kind of unknown firewall (Note since OpenVp is able to connect when the normal one is the Server I guess tinc should be able, too) start.bat-------------------------------tincd -n Empire-Network -D -d4 --bypass-security (Bypass is only currently because tis not working yet)

Let me start with what I'm trying to accomplish. I use tinc mainly to get to subnets behind the daemons and I don't control those subnets and can't guarantee overlap. I was using routing mode and reconfiguring tinc every time i needed to get to a subnet behind a specific daemon. Then I came across switch mode that allowed me to simply add routes based on the IP address of the tinc