similar to: Why sometimes the MTU discovery by UDP never get a response?

I found the server(1.1.1.1) didn’t receive the MTU probe from client, so I add iptables -A INPUT -p udp —port 443 -j ACCEPT. After this, I see one packet matching on the server side, and the MTU negotiation works, but when I tear down the tinc, and re-establish the tinc connection, the counter of below UDP/443 never increase, and also my other tinc nodes never add this statement on iptables, but

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48 laforge@netfilter.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org 2003-02-14 09:02 ------- This is a really hard

Hi, experts for example, the below case: You can see a lot of back and forth MTU probe packets been exchanged between tinc nodes, but it’s weird that, from the debug log, one line shows "No response to MTU probes from node1”, but it indeed received a lot of MTU probe response, and finally it get the conclusion of "Packet for node1 (1.1.1.1 port 443) larger than minimum MTU”.

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |netfilter at linuxace.com AssignedTo|kaber at trash.net |netfilter-buglog at lists.netf

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48 ------- Additional Comments From tatonet@tiscali.it 2004-02-25 15:05 ------- I know that this is an old bug report, but it's still opened... If we save the size of each single fragment we have to face another problem: how should we re-fragment the packet if original fragments were partially or totally overlapped?

Dear Guus, while improving the PMTU Discovery algorithm, I found the following behavior in the method "send_udppacket": 1) The code checks, whether the data size is smaller than the MTU, thus if it fits into a single UDP packet. If not, you send the packet via TCP. 2) The data is compressed, changing its size. (Usually, making it smaller, but that's not always

Hi All, I traced the core dump of a segfaulting tinc (1.1pre16) and found that the problem occurs when dest->mtu is 0 in src/route.c:607:fragment_ipv4_packet() maxlen = (dest->mtu - ether_size - ip_size) & ~0x7; ... int len = todo > maxlen ? maxlen : todo; memcpy(DATA(&fragment) + ether_size + ip_size, offset, len); If dest->mtu is 0, signed int maxlen becomes -40 and is

Hi Guus, while checking the source code, I stumbled upon PMTU Discovery. I've got a question regarding the process of sending/receiving PMTU packets. As I understand, the packet flow is like this: 1 .Tinc creates a packet with a specific payload length to send it as an PMTU probe. (The data part is just some random bytes.) 2. This packet gets compressed and sent

Hello everyone! Could you help me with UDP truncation problem? I have three hosts, two on broadband connection, one on 4G (lower MTU). Judging by tincd logs, MTU discovery works, for example on 4G host: tincd[4598]: Got MTU probe length 1363 TCP inside the VPN network works fine, but UDP is truncated. By testing with iperf and dumping traffic I get this: Between broadband hosts:

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:09:27PM +0300, Vladimir Kudrya wrote: > Could you help me with UDP truncation problem? > I have three hosts, two on broadband connection, one on 4G (lower MTU). > Judging by tincd logs, MTU discovery works, for example on 4G host: > > tincd[4598]: Got MTU probe length 1363 > > TCP inside the VPN network works fine, but UDP is truncated. By

While working on SPTPS UDP relaying I realized that there is one issue I didn't account for, which is that the sending node only knows the PMTU to the first relay node. It doesn't know the PMTU of the entire relay path beyond the first hop, because the relay nodes don't provide their own PMTU information over the metaprotocol. Now, in the legacy protocol this is not really an issue,

Hi all, I have two nodes, connected to a switch, using Tinc 1.1 from git. They connect each other with sptps, and to other nodes in the Internet with old protocol because they have Tinc 1.0. There is no problem with remote nodes, but between my 2 local nodes, they see 1518 PMTU. But local network is 1500 MTU !!! So nodes can ping each other but larger data does not go. test1=sllm1 test2=sllm2

Hi there, Following situation: 3 nodes, Alpha (Home fileserver), Beta (regular PC), Gamma (Notebook). All three in a NATed LAN usually, though the notebook also gets carried around and connects from the outside from time to time. Tinc should help me keep my other 2 PCs reachable from Gamma, even when I'm not at home. Also I plan on maybe adding more nodes to that in the future. I have set

Oh, thanks, in my current case, I haven’t config “Address” parameter in A’s host config, is this will make A prohibited it listen on the tinc ports? Question: 1. if I config “Address” in A’s config, and even though A is in a private subnet, it might still possible for A to establish connection with X(X is public IP address)? 2. If there any parameter to disable the direct connection discovery,

A couple of weeks ago, I asked for help with getting tinc to work with a couple of issues. I prioritize my hobby projects below essential things, and I'm a bit scatterbrained when there's an internet connection, so it took awhile before I finished trying the things you suggested, and got to a point where I was stuck again. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions! I set

Hallo, I have a couple of tinc hosts in the same network, some using the latest tinc 1.1 git and some using 1.0.24. It seems like traffic between 1.1 and 1.0 nodes is always transfered using TCP (and an intermediate node, if not directly connected), never with UDP. Viewed from host W (tinc 1.1): (All after successfully pinging an IP behind the remote side to trigger UDP path probing, and

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> wrote: > Hang on a second. I've just re-read your original message and I > believe you are confused about what the "Subnet" option does. Again, > it deals with addresses *inside* the VPN. In the configuration you > posted you seem to be using 10.240.0.4 and 10.240.0.5 as internal >

I don't really think Address config in node description will decide it will listening for the public connection or not. From my own case, even if a real private node(pppoe dynamic address, tcp port listening not allowed, but Udp allowed) can have a p2p direct connection, I think it based on udp NAT traverse, but if you use TCPonly for this node, and also forbidden the incoming traffic to this

Hi, Since someone asked, here's how POE standard does discovery process for a POE device. of course is a passive detection... but that's why you don't have POE always-on on a POE enabled switch port.... you can find more info in article area of http://www.poweroverethernet.com and full specs @ http://www.ieee802.org/3/af/index.html You will find a resistance value in the quote

I would very much like to apply "subgroup discovery" techniques to some of the data I am analyzing at this moment. Subgroup discovery is an interesting approach and is quite well known in the Data Mining community, though in essence it is a purely statistical approach. To read an introductory article see "Subgroup discovery and visualization methods"