similar to: LAN discovery issue

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

We are testing tinc inside Google Compute within a single region and an external region. Two boxes are created as follows: /etc/tinc/test/tinc_test_1 Subnet = 10.240.0.0/16 Subnet = 10.240.0.4/32 Address = 104.154.59.151 /etc/tinc/test/tinc_test_2 Subnet = 10.240.0.0/16 Subnet = 10.240.0.5/32 Address = 104.197.132.141 /etc/tinc/test/tinc.conf Name = $HOST AddressFamily = ipv4 Interface = tun0

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

I'm currently running tinc-pre6 on 2 nodes in a larger network. My Laptop (Lassulus), lan ip: 192.168.2.100, tinc-ip: 10.243.0.2 My Server (alphalabs), lan ip: 192.168.2.103, tinc-ip: 10.243.1.10 internet vserver (slowpoke), no lan ip, tinc-ip: 10.243.232.121 Everything works fine until both nodes are in the same LAN. The first 2-3 minutes everything is fine. Pings between the machines go

Hi all, I am currently deploying tinc as an alternative to OpenVPN. My setup includes a lot of nodes and some of them are sitting together behind the same router on the same network segment. (E.g. connected to the same switch.) I noticed, that those nodes do never talk directly to each other via their private ip-addresses, but instead use the NATed address they got from the router.

Hi, I've set up Tinc in switch-mode on the three nodes "gw", "rb493g" and "v900w", but the nodes "rb493g" and "w900v" do not connect to each other. On each node port 655 is opened with TCP and UDP. "gw": static IPv4- and IPv6 address listed in the hosts-file "gw" hosts-files: "gw",

*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

Hi list, I'm hoping someone can help me understand when to use IndirectData. Quoting the manual: IndirectData = <yes|no> (no) This option specifies whether other tinc daemons besides the one you specified with ConnectTo can make a direct connection to you. This is especially useful if you are behind a firewall and it is impossible to make a connection from the outside to your tinc

Hi, All Here is the case: A, B, C, D all configured with "IndirectData = yes”, so connection only happens when there’s a “ConnectTo” in tinc.conf. Arrow indicate the “ConnectTo” direction Everything works fine earlier as below: 1. A connect to C, D connect to C 2. C is the transit node where only forward traffic between A and C 3. D advertise 0.0.0.0/0#2 4. A can access internet from D

Hi I'm trying to implement a scheme in which the nodes will have a direct UDP tunnel to each other. First, all nodes make connection with one public node, and then make connections with each other. And I came across the following problem: Remotely located nodes can establish a direct UDP connection, but the nodes that are in the same local network can not, and all traffic goes through the

Sure, let me reply all here for my finding. @Lars @Guus A’s tinc.conf: Name = bright AddressFamily = ipv4 ConnectTo = aly_hk A’s tinc-up: #!/bin/sh ifconfig $INTERFACE 10.0.0.110 netmask 255.255.255.0 A’s host config: Subnet = 10.0.0.110/32 (VPN address) Subnet = 192.168.31.0/24 (LAN address) IndirectData = yes (enabled for every tinc nodes) The node aly_hk (vpn address 10.0.0.3) connects with

On 30.08.2016 17:37, Guus Sliepen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:38:16PM +0200, Armin Schindler wrote: > >> we use a meshed VPN with TINC to connect 7 offices. >> Some office are in other countries and use other ISPs. The connection >> between some ISPs (peering partners) are not that good. This means we >> have packet loss between those direct connections.

Hello, I'm running a tinc network including dozens of nodes in switch mode. Some are running stable branch 1.0, while a small set of nodes are running 1.1 with ed25519 support. I discovered some routing issue between two nodes: (names are hidden) A (1.1): ConnectTo = B ConnectTo = C IndirectData = yes Mode = Switch B (1.0): Mode = Switch C (1.1 but only with RSA key): Mode = Switch

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Guus Sliepen <guus at tinc-vpn.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:21:34AM -0500, James Hartig wrote: > >> Those 2 boxes are in the same subnet and have addresses of 10.240.0.4 and >> 10.240.0.5, respectively, on their eth0 interface. Port 655 on tcp and udp >> is open to the world. The tinc_test_2 box has a ConnectTo of

Well this has had me stumped for days now. For months I've been using tinc in TCPOnly because I always received the unknown host error when using UDP. On Monday, i set the flag IndirectData = yes in my host files, and removed the TCPOnly line. Initially, everything worked great. My throughput increased from 600KB/sec to 2MB/sec between the sites. However, I also did some testing with

Hi, I believe I have found a bug with regard to the LocalDiscovery feature. This is on tinc-1.1pre7 between two Windows nodes. Steps to reproduce: - Get two nodes talking using LocalDiscovery (e.g. put them on the same LAN behind a NAT with no metaconnection to each other) - Make one ping the other. Expected result: - The two nodes should ping each other without any packet loss, hopefully at

Hi, Lars Thanks for your suggestion, will give it a try later to see how it performs. But, yesterday, I did a below test: A ConnectTo B and C, B ConnectTo D, C ConnectTo D; All nodes turned "IndirectData" on in its host configuration, so the tunnel only follow metacomnection instead of direct connect. D announced default route by having the Subnet = 0.0.0.0/0 statement in its host

From the tinc page: "*Automatic full mesh routing-* Regardless of how you set up the tinc daemons to connect to each other, VPN traffic is always (if possible) sent directly to the destination, without going through intermediate hops." That's exactly what's not working for me. Let me illustrate: Both nodes B and C have ConnectTo statements to connect to node A. Node A

Hi, I'm using LocalDiscovery = yes to let tinc clients connect directly behind a NAT. Problem is that clients only start to talk directly after pinging each client from each client. Is there way to force direct connection after starting the tunnel. Ciao!