similar to: Problem with connecting another subnet (Peter Thurner)

On 8.2.19. 17:01, jradxl at yahoo.com wrote: > Hello Peter, Hi John, > Your question is similar to my recent question, and I have a similar Ping problem.But yours, with two Tinc networks, is more complex than mine. > > All I can say, and I hope it helps, is that in my case I have found my Ubuntu Tinc Server nodes Ah, forgot to mention that I use Debian 9 here. > do not like

Hello Peter, Your question is similar to my recent question, and I have a similar Ping problem.But yours, with two Tinc networks, is more complex than mine. All I can say, and I hope it helps, is that in my case I have found my Ubuntu Tinc Server nodes do not like being specified as a address on the same network as the local LANsSo I have a specific network for the Tinc Server nodes, and in this

Hello tinc mailing list! Nice to be accepted here :) So I've been using tinc for a while just for itself and now I would like to use it to route to another network. To be exact I have two tinc networks with a "central node" that is connected to both tincs: tiutl: 172.16.0.0/24 tiosp: 172.16.1.0/24 I'm doing that because I can then do fancy firewalling on that central node.

On 8.2.19. 22:39, albi wrote: >>> The setup looks like this: >>> web <- tinc "tiosp" -> gateway <- tinc "tiutl" -> backup > Which lan ips do all your computers have? network addess will be fine. > > > ALBI... Hi Albi, web:   tinc tiosp: 172.16.1.10   local: 10.0.0.5 gateway:   tinc tiutl: 172.16.0.5   tinc tiosp: 172.16.1.5   local:

>> The setup looks like this: >> web <- tinc "tiosp" -> gateway <- tinc "tiutl" -> backup Which lan ips do all your computers have? network addess will be fine. ALBI...

> > And I would just put 'forwarders { 172.16.1.10; };' in 'options' > I already have this entry, but for reverse lookup it does not work. Eg: dig suporte.domain.intra +short 172.16.1.15 dig -x 172.16.1.15 +short shows nothing On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:59 PM, Rowland Penny via samba < samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 13:51:00 -0300 >

hi folks, To forward everything that does not belong to AD (subdomain ad.domain.intra) to the domain "domain.intra" I configured an entry as show below in named.conf.local zone "domain.intra" IN { type forward; forward only; forwarders { 172.16.1.10; }; # ns1.domain.intra }; Within this network (172.16.1.0/24) I have dc1 (dc1.ad.domain.intra), dc2

I need basic PPPoE startup help. adsl-start DID bring up my PPPoE link (ppp0) to my ISP over eth0 via the DSL modem/bridge. My IPv4 CIDR block is routing and Shorewall is doing the firewalling. But shorewall has to be started after ppp0 is up and working. For now this means running shorewall restart (or start?). Shorewall 4.2 will have a way to restart shorewall without recompiling, I

I?ve been trying to get replication working on Samba4 for a couple of weeks, with no success. I?ve tried the latest rsync?s, and today?s failure was using the Alpha9. I?m running on 64-bit Ubuntu 9.10 server, fully patched. I?ve tried to replicate the procedure as set forth by Tridge here: http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2009-September/066753.htm l My test network is

Hi, We have two internet connections and I would like to loadbalance between the two using advanced routing. The gateway machine to my lan has two interfaces, one connected to lan(eth0) and other to wan (eth1). The wan side interface is connected to a switch which is terminated with two internet connections from two ISPs. I have added the routes as follows, ip route add default scope

hi, I''ve a dedicated internet link 512k with a cisco router, and now, I want to upgrade bandwidth with 8 ADSLs (512k each) then: - build kernel 2.4.27 with pachs: - patch-o-matic-ng-20040621 : CONNMARK, H323, etc... - http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/#multigw Julian''s patch. - Activate "equal cost multi path" (Advanced Router-Networking Options) and so on -

Hi Saverio, I found conflict: 172.16.1.10 00:50:56:1b:ba:5e VMware, Inc. 172.16.1.10 00:50:56:2b:12:e6 VMware, Inc. (DUP: 2) 172.16.1.10 00:50:56:2b:12:e6 VMware, Inc. (DUP: 3) 172.16.1.10 00:50:56:2b:12:e6 VMware, Inc. (DUP: 4) 172.16.1.10 00:50:56:2b:12:e6 VMware, Inc. (DUP: 5) So my assumptions were wrong ! :D Probably Virtual

I think it should work at least for TUN virtual interface as TUn works at IP level. This is a sample configuration. firewall1 lan = 172.16.1.11/19 (ALWAYS ACTIVE) - "Physical Network Interface" - system config as ifcfg-... 172.16.1.10/19 (VIP Keepalived Make active) - Active/Passive configuration with firewall2 firewall1 vpndr1

I've been using a Samba share at home on my Linux box for about a year which contains my music library. Until recently, I've not had any problems whatsoever. As of the last week or two, I've gotten almost constant disconnects from my Windows XP Home box when accessing files on that share. To my knowledge, nothing has changed on either computer, including Samba setup, firewalls, and the

I have two internal networks 192.168.9.0/24 and 192.168.0.0/24 each connected to the internet and each connected as a VPN via tinc (device vpn). The gateways are 192.168.9.1 and 192.168.0.1 Attached to the 192.168.9.0/24 network is another network 172.16.1.0/24 via a gateway 192.168.0.1 <==> 172.16.1.1. On 192.168.0.1 gateway I have routes (route -n) like this: Kernel IP routing table

This is a vpn for Disater Recovery sites, so it is not necessary to have a seamless failover, strictly speaking. Encryption instead is mandatory. Testing we found that on Keepalived failover remote Tinc take few seconds to reset the connection and correctly re-connect to the new active firewall (probably new firewall resetting the connection + PingTimeout + some seconds to reconnect). This is

Hello! I''ve the following set-up RemoteClient1 (Win Vista), RemoteClient2 (Win XP) do both connect to my OpenVPN box. They can talk to each other, using their 172.16.1.x tun0 Address on the server. The server itself (Ubuntu gutsy, OpenVPN: 2.0.9-8, shorewall:3.4.4-1) has 1 NIC that connects the machine to a) a DSL-router (forwards several ports to this linux machine, including the

This is what I want to avoid :D I want an active Tinc virtual interface active with ip identical of the other firewall, without ip conflict on the same network. Do you know if Tun type virtual interface on one host can have same ip address of another host in the same network without ip conflict ? ie if a tun virtual interface can work active without transmitting on real network ? or if such a

Hello All, I have two Internet link and two LAN networks I have Redhat-7.1 linux-2.4.17 kernel and 2 NICs In eth0 172.16.1.1 and eth0:1 192.168.1.1 in eth1 are public ips of isps as eth1 a.b.c.d and eth1:0 w.x..y.z I want do source routing using ip rule command. echo 200 isp1 >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables ip rule add from 172.16.1.0/24 table isp1 ip rule ls 0: from all lookup local

Hello, I am using samba 2.0.4b on Linux 2.0.36. Since I changed some of the parameters in my smb.conf I have a very strange Problem. Everytime my Samba-Box wins the browselist election process two nmbds are started and my WinXX-Clients do not get access to samba (I could see the server but not access the shares nor login to the domain). smbclient -L server from server works fine. From another