similar to: Reload subnet config with HUP signal

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 08:25:28AM +0100, Armin Schindler wrote: > But I have a question regarding "Subnet=" possibilities. When I have more than > one Server acting as host for VMs and need to have automatic routing to > all VMs on these servers, can I use tinc to create this routing automatically? > > My idea is to have a script which is started when a VM is

If you're using StrictSubnets, you will still be fine. StrictSubnets means that A will only use B's key (which C does not know) to send packets to B's statically configured subnets. C cannot impersonate B (as in, take its node name) because it would have to know B's private key to do so, and it cannot impersonate B's subnets because A is using StrictSubnets. The worst that C

On 09/03/2016 10:56 AM, Etienne Dechamps wrote: > C will still need keys in order to establish metaconnections with A and B (as > well as a few other things). However there is no need for C to own any > "Subnets" at all. If somebody breaks into C, he could get access to the vpn network, right? Because the keys are there, it will be possible to use them to get access. Even if

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 have two servers (A and B) in separate locations. Both are connected together via two tinc switches to provide two subnets on both servers. This works pretty good. I can start my VMs on any server connected to one of those bridges without changing any routes. The subnets hosted on both servers (each in a bridge) are 172.16.10.0/24 (mainly on A) and 172.16.11.0/24 (mainly on B) Now I

On 2/14/20 2:23 PM, Tobias Kirchhofer wrote: > On 14 Feb 2020, at 14:05, Armin Schindler wrote: > >> On 2/14/20 11:44 AM, Tobias Kirchhofer wrote: >>> On 14 Feb 2020, at 11:06, Armin Schindler wrote: >>> >>> ??? Hello! > > [?] > >>> For our new setup (planned with CentOS 8, waiting for the official repo for the latest dovecot >>>

this happened to me on a cvs update, rebuilt a clean chan capi cm and all is well. Greg ________________________________ From: asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Voicomm User Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 3:29 AM To: Armin Schindler Cc: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Asterisk ISDN: Problem

On 14 Feb 2020, at 14:05, Armin Schindler wrote: > On 2/14/20 11:44 AM, Tobias Kirchhofer wrote: >> On 14 Feb 2020, at 11:06, Armin Schindler wrote: >> >> Hello! [?] >> For our new setup (planned with CentOS 8, waiting for the official >> repo for the latest dovecot >> version?) we have a prototype on Debian base with the latest >> version of

On 11/15/2015 02:28 PM, Armin Schindler wrote: > Hello, > > I have two servers (A and B) in separate locations. Both are connected > together via two tinc switches to provide two subnets on both servers. > This works pretty good. I can start my VMs on any server connected > to one of those bridges without changing any routes. > The subnets hosted on both servers (each in a

C will still need keys in order to establish metaconnections with A and B (as well as a few other things). However there is no need for C to own any "Subnets" at all. On 3 September 2016 at 06:21, Armin <armin at melware.de> wrote: > On 09/02/2016 08:51 PM, Etienne Dechamps wrote: > > What version of tinc are you using? tinc 1.1 already does what you want > out of

> Armin Schindler <armin.schindler at sysgo.com> hat am 14. Februar 2020 15:02 geschrieben: > One public namespace would look like it is with cyrus in the client: one "shared/" > folder to open/close. That's right, but there is one important difference: Cyrus sorts those folders alphabetically, Dovecot doesn't. Dovecot guys say it's the client's job and

On 15 Feb 2020, at 10:43, Armin Schindler wrote: > On 14.02.2020 11:44, Tobias Kirchhofer wrote: >> On 14 Feb 2020, at 11:06, Armin Schindler wrote: > ... >> >> The sorting in the according public folder happens in a global sieve >> script before user scripts are fireing. It is combined with the >> ?+? >> notation in postfix for sub addresses and an

On 09/02/2016 08:51 PM, Etienne Dechamps wrote: > What version of tinc are you using? tinc 1.1 already does what you want out of > the box: packets sent from node A to node B through node C will use a key that > A and B will negotiate between themselves. C doesn't have the key, and will > act as a blind relay. C will not be able to decipher the packets flowing > between A and B.

On 15.02.2020 14:45, Tobias Kirchhofer wrote: > On 15 Feb 2020, at 12:27, Armin Schindler wrote: > > On 15.02.2020 12:16, Tobias Kirchhofer wrote: > ... > > the sieve part seems to be very tricky. > My test is now working with a public folder and I have a > "sieve_before" script in place which works for rules of the >

Armin, I am running 1.2.7.1 with an Eicon T1 board version 2 on Debian 2.4 I don't know the details on chan-capi / CAPI drivers. We did the install April of this year. How can I tell what I have? Thank you for your time. Tim -----Original Message----- From: asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com]On Behalf Of Armin Schindler Sent: Wednesday,

What version of tinc are you using? tinc 1.1 already does what you want out of the box: packets sent from node A to node B through node C will use a key that A and B will negotiate between themselves. C doesn't have the key, and will act as a blind relay. C will not be able to decipher the packets flowing between A and B. This is different from tinc 1.0, where C would have to decipher the

Hello all, as written in my other posts, I have a setup of about seven hosts. Two of them (A and B) use StrictSubnets and an own routing via a special host (C), because C has better connection to the A and B than a direct A-B connection. Host C is in a place where I need to create special security settings. The VPN encrypted data shall not be available on host C. There is no need for host C be

On 2/14/20 11:44 AM, Tobias Kirchhofer wrote: > On 14 Feb 2020, at 11:06, Armin Schindler wrote: > > Hello! > > we are about to move from cyrus to dovecot and have one open issue > for that migration. > With cyrus we have "shared/" folders with a name that is self defined like > shared/project-xyz > but the email address for direct

Le 31/08/2016 à 10:47, Armin a écrit : > 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

Hello all, we are using tinc 1.0.24 with 6 hosts (endpoints). Quality of service is used with prio qdisc on all network interfaces. This means depending on the TOS value of the IP header IP-packets will get a priority queue on the network interface. Packets from TINC (UDP 655) maybe reordered using these queues to send out high-prio (VoIP) packets first. Could this create a problem on the