similar to: State graph of UDP data-connections

Hallo, Another strange and difficult to understand thing - seems like all the easy bugs in 1.1 are gone ;) waehring (1.1) | +-------------------+--------------+ | | | vpnhub1 (1.1) igor (1.1) turing (1.0) | | | +-------------------+--------------+ | tokamak Whenever another node outside of the graph connects to vpnhub or igor

Multiple questions here, thinking one email is less annoying (sorry if not). Running tinc 1.0.31 1. Could anyone give an explanation (or point to documentation) of the differences between Connections, Nodes, and Edges in the USR1/2 logging, and the various information in there? 2. Connections appears to match the list of ConnectTo hosts in the main config file -- does this mean this node can

Hello, We're suffering from sporadic network blockage(read: unable to ping other nodes) with 1.1-pre17. Before upgrading to the 1.1-pre release, the same network blockage also manifested itself in a pure 1.0.33 network. The log shows that there are a lot of "Got ADD_EDGE from nodeX (192.168.0.1 port 655) which does not match existing entry" and it turns out that the mismatches

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

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, We want to deploy a tinc VPN, with more than 50 sites connected all arround the world. But we cannot trust all our sites with the same level, so the tinc solution (automatic full mesh) is "too automatic" for us : *any* node can add a new node which will be connected directly to others. A solution could be TLS (signing public keys), but create a PKI is another issue for us.

LocalDiscovery works by sending some of the MTU probe packets to the broadcast address (255.255.255.255). If the destination node receives one of these packets, it will update its UDP cache and reply, thus the two nodes will start using their local addresses to communicate. Now, I see two problems with this approach: - In case the two nodes are behind the same NAT and can reach other *but*

Hello! I have recently installed tinc on a linux 2.4 machine which has 192.168.0.0/24 private network connected to eth0 and registered ip on eth1. I also installed tinc on Windows 2000 machine on a remote location. for this moment I can establish connection, on Linux machine tincd says: Sep 26 21:10:50 hostname tinc.gscvpn[483]: Node home (y.y.y.y port 655) became reachable But i

Hello, We are using tinc 1.0.24 with switch mode. Some questions regarding to the UDP connections on tinc. As far as I understand tinc is building meta connections with "ConnectTo", and "ADD_EDGE" packet. With the help of EDGE info two nodes who don't have direct meta connection are able to communicate through direct UDP connection. I understand we can dump the meta

Hi, I was previously using tinc-1.1pre8 and it worked just fine, but after upgrading to tinc-1.1pre10 my Windows machine is unable to connect to my tinc network, as it fails to complete the handshake. Steps to reproduce: - Set up a Linux node with tinc-1.1pre10 using "tinc init" - Set up a Windows node with tinc-1.1pre10 using "tinc init", and try to make it connect to the

I would like to discuss the following commit: https://github.com/gsliepen/tinc/commit/4a0b9981513059755b9fd15b38fc198f46a0d6f2 ("Determine peer's reflexive address and port when exchanging keys") This is a great feature as it basically allows peers to do UDP Hole Punching (via MTU probes) even when both are having their source ports rewritten by a NAT, which is extremely useful.

Hello, we currently set up a large tinc network with 2 central Nodes (these nodes connecting to each other). All satellites (ca 40) connect to these both machines. All containing two ConntectTo fields (for backup) e.g. (satellite) Name = nfp_hy Device = /dev/tun PrivateKeyFile = /etc/tinc/nfp_hy/rsa_key.priv ConnectTo = nfp_f_vpn ConnectTo = nfp_c_vpn If the count of satellites reaches

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:26:46PM +0200, Sven-Haegar Koch wrote: > Another strange and difficult to understand thing - seems like all the > easy bugs in 1.1 are gone ;) [...] > Got ADD_EDGE from aaa_vpnhub1 (1.2.3.4 port 443) for haegar_tokamak > -> igor which does not match existing entry (Local address 2.3.4.5 > != unknown) > > What I think may happen is that the

On Fri, 15 May 2015, Guus Sliepen wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:26:46PM +0200, Sven-Haegar Koch wrote: > > > Another strange and difficult to understand thing - seems like all the > > easy bugs in 1.1 are gone ;) > [...] > > Got ADD_EDGE from aaa_vpnhub1 (1.2.3.4 port 443) for haegar_tokamak > > -> igor which does not match existing entry (Local

Hello, Bumping this in the hope someone can help me. If all the questions are too much, could anyone answer #3: Is there any way to have multiple tinc daemons active-active advertising the same subnet with traffic distributed between the two? thanks On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Ryan, Justin <justin.ryan at nytimes.com> wrote: > Multiple questions here, thinking one email is less

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 02:36:18PM +0800, Amit Lianson wrote: > We're suffering from sporadic network blockage(read: unable to ping > other nodes) with 1.1-pre17. Before upgrading to the 1.1-pre release, > the same network blockage also manifested itself in a pure 1.0.33 > network. > > The log shows that there are a lot of "Got ADD_EDGE from nodeX >

Hello tincers, I run a small tinc mesh using version 1.1pre10 on mostly linux (debian) hosts. In the past, I was able to successfully join my windows machine to the tinc network, when I was running an earlier version of tinc (throughout the mesh). However, with 1.1pre10, I have had no success. Is this a known error, a misconfiguration on my part, or some other issue? I currently have no tinc-up

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 12:09:52AM +0200, Sven-Haegar Koch wrote: > This change is not so good: > > Connection with aaa_vpnhub1 (1.2.3.4 port 443) activated > Error while translating addresses: ai_family not supported > > (And then the tinc process exists) Hm, I couldn't reproduce it, but I committed a fix anyway that makes sockaddr2str() handle AF_UNSPEC addresses. It

On Sat, 16 May 2015, Guus Sliepen wrote: > On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 12:09:52AM +0200, Sven-Haegar Koch wrote: > > > This change is not so good: > > > > Connection with aaa_vpnhub1 (1.2.3.4 port 443) activated > > Error while translating addresses: ai_family not supported > > > > (And then the tinc process exists) > > Hm, I couldn't reproduce

Hi there I have the following setup Home - Main Tinc server with public IP running on PfSense work - tinc client running behind a CISCO ASA firewall with public IP running on Windows 10 offsite - tinc client running on tomato router behind a double NAT Home & offsite connect & i can see all PCs & devices & connect to them easily, on either side work to Home or offsite connects