similar to: miniupnp support in Windows builds

Hi Guus, Unfortunately, I often notice that even with the advanced UDP hole punching mechanisms that tinc uses, I still come across cases on my network where two nodes behind NATs cannot talk to each other because one of the nodes is behind a "strict" NAT that won't use consistent source ports for UDP packets that are sent to different destination addresses. More formally, this

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:04:20PM +0000, Etienne Dechamps wrote: > Unfortunately, I often notice that even with the advanced UDP hole > punching mechanisms that tinc uses, I still come across cases on my > network where two nodes behind NATs cannot talk to each other because > one of the nodes is behind a "strict" NAT [...]. This type of NAT > will stop any UDP hole

On 12 November 2015 at 21:29, Guus Sliepen <guus at tinc-vpn.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:04:20PM +0000, Etienne Dechamps wrote: >> According to an online NAT check service, around 50% of NATs in the >> wild have this problem, making this a very real issue: >> http://nattest.net.in.tum.de/results.php > > Are you referring to port restricted NAT in the

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> wrote: > miniupnpc only provides a blocking API, there is no way to > integrate it into an event loop. That pretty much means we will need > to run the UPnP code in a separate thread. Which means using pthreads > on POSIX, and then we would either have a dependency on pthreads-Win32 > on Windows, or

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:05:19PM +0000, Etienne Dechamps wrote: > My best guess is that it's simply a direct application of > probabilities: if the probability that a NAT is "compliant" is 70%, > then the probability that *both* NATs at both ends of the tunnel are > "compliant" is only 50% (0.70*0.70). Indeed both NATs need to be > compliant in order for

On 1/18/23 17:39, Dominick Samperi wrote: > Thanks, > > But this didn't work. It installs msys2 along with lots of other > stuff, and gdb would not start as before (missing DLL's). > > Then I tried to run the command you suggested again, and there was a > warning from the package manager about a cycle detected, but now gdb > starts with the following messages...

Thanks for the detailed feedback Tomas, I ran the command 'pacman -Syuu' again, just to be sure, and this time it says "there is nothing to do." It appears that gdb is working. I was spooked by the diagnostics that you say is a known (not serious) issue. My mistake was not setting a breakpoint on main, so I confused problems with gdb with problems with the program I'm

On 11 November 2015 at 21:57, David Nicol <davidnicol at gmail.com> wrote: > it is entirely possible to write code that uses threads on Win32 and forks > on POSIX by abstracting the communication bits generically. Signalling could > work over pipes on both. > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa365152(v=vs.85).aspx Hum... yes of course, but I

On 1/18/23 19:41, Dominick Samperi wrote: > Thanks for the detailed feedback Tomas, > > I ran the command 'pacman -Syuu' again, just to be sure, and this time > it says "there is nothing to do." > > It appears that gdb is working. I was spooked by the diagnostics that > you say is a known (not serious) issue. > > My mistake was not setting a

On second thought, there is a lot of metapramming code in Rcpp that runs before main, so I was wrong to say nothing can happen before main() is called. Strategically placed print statements may be the best strategy. On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 8:17 PM Dominick Samperi <djsamperi at gmail.com> wrote: > Since these ?stray threads? were appearing before I installed gdb into > Rtools42, this

I recently wrote a post on installing "Git for Windows" on a legacy XP SP3 Home box. http://nurmi-labs.blogspot.com/2016/11/git.html I added some missing files from the MSYS2 packages which were removed for the downloadable "Git for Windows" installer and a compiler and some additional libraries. For other utilities (bison, flex, info, m4, make, and csh/tcsh), and code I

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=795 Summary: RELATED doesn't accommodate multicast UDP solicitation resulting in unicast reply Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component:

If the subject of xapian-core apitests on MSYS/MINGW and MSYS2/MINGW is taken up it might be noted that the compiler version could be recorded, probably gcc 5.3.0 or newer, that closed pipes might be an issue, and also allocating for the location of xapian-tcpsrv. Not from my own tests but another man informed there was some problems with [MSYS2] python bindings. I am not knowledgeable of the

Does anyone had an experience with automating Windows installation process? I am planning (after my extension programming) to implement the following inside it: User runs installer, goes through usual pages and then installer asks for a name of his/her future node. It's not a problem to embed our network bootstrap configuration inside installer. The problem starts with Windows itself. We

Dear All, I've tried to build xapian-core 1.4.3 on MSYS2. It fails with attached error (undefined reference to `exp10'). I think it might be missing an explicit link to 'm'. I'm not able to fix this myself as I do not know autotools sufficiently well, but I hope you might be able to help. Cheers, Mario Emmenlauer -- BioDataAnalysis GmbH, Mario Emmenlauer Tel.

Hi there! I'm building a VB.NET application in order to setup the configuration files of a net (and this is the really easy part of my project) via INI file, but now I've got some problems... launching tincd -n [NET] -K I should insert some variables, and it is impossible to auto-fill them. So I've downloaded the source files and opened it. I found the part of that code and

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote: > > This version includes only minor updates to the tools. I indicated last summer that I was hoping to update GCC from the current version 4.6.3 before the R 3.2.0 release, but this now looks unlikely, unless someone else with experience building it can help. I have been looking into this a bit over

http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.2/shorewall-2.2.4 ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.2/shorewall-2.2.4 Problems Corrected: 1. The error message: Error: No appropriate chain for zone <z1> to zone <z2> has been changed to one that is more self-explanatory: Error: No policy defined for zone <z1> to zone <z2> 2. When only an

fauno <fauno at kiwwwi.com.ar> writes: > Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> writes: >> (I realize that this means UPnP support could possibly be achieved >> simply by suggesting that the user spawn some standalone UPnP client >> process in the background from the tinc-up hook. That's not very >> user-friendly, though. Especially on Windows.) >

On 2015-01-08 02:31, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > On 07/01/2015 5:20 PM, Jeroen Ooms wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> This version includes only minor updates to the tools. I indicated last summer that I was hoping to update GCC from the current version 4.6.3 before the R 3.2.0 release, but this now