I gave tinc1.0pre3 a test after the modifications you have done today. It insists that it is still 1.0pre2 but this is due to the fact the you used "1" as tag for configure.in rather than "CABAL". Anyway - results were not much more successful than yesterday: *** SERVER side log file from startup until sone seconds after connection was established *** Jun 25 21:14:30 lemon tinc.9[21698]: tincd 1.0pre2 (Jun 25 2000 21:04:50) starting, debug level 4 Jun 25 21:14:30 lemon tinc.9[21698]: Generating 128 bits keys Jun 25 21:14:30 lemon tinc.9[21698]: Ready: listening on port 655 Jun 25 21:14:49 lemon tinc.9[21698]: Connection from 213.54.42.228 port 1046 Jun 25 21:14:49 lemon tinc.9[21698]: Sending BASIC_INFO to 213.54.42.228 Jun 25 21:14:49 lemon tinc.9[21698]: Got request from 0.0.0.0 (213.54.42.228): 61 7 c0a80964/ffffff00:28f 2 Jun 25 21:14:49 lemon tinc.9[21698]: Got BASIC_INFO from 213.54.42.228 Jun 25 21:14:49 lemon tinc.9[21698]: Opening UDP socket to 213.54.42.228 Jun 25 21:14:49 lemon tinc.9[21698]: Sending PASSPHRASE to 192.168.9.100 (213.54.42.228) *** CLIENT side log file from startup until sone seconds after connection was established *** Jun 25 21:14:50 tomcat tinc[9291]: tincd 1.0pre2 (Jun 25 2000 21:04:50) starting, debug level 4 Jun 25 21:14:50 tomcat tinc[9291]: Generating 128 bits keys Jun 25 21:14:50 tomcat tinc[9291]: Ready: listening on port 655 Jun 25 21:14:50 tomcat tinc[9291]: Connected to 212.79.9.74:655 Jun 25 21:14:50 tomcat tinc[9291]: Got request from 0.0.0.0 ((null)): 61 7 c0a80901/ffffff00:28f 0 Jun 25 21:14:50 tomcat tinc[9291]: Got BASIC_INFO from (null) Jun 25 21:14:50 tomcat tinc[9291]: Opening UDP socket to 212.79.9.74 Jun 25 21:14:50 tomcat tinc[9291]: Sending BASIC_INFO to (null) *** CLIENT side log when I tried to ping the peer VPN IP *** Jun 25 21:15:15 tomcat tinc[9291]: An IP packet (0800) for 192.168.9.1 from 192.168.9.100 Jun 25 21:15:15 tomcat tinc[9291]: 00:00:00:00:00:00 to fe:fd:c0:a8:09:64 Jun 25 21:15:15 tomcat tinc[9291]: Trying to look up 192.168.9.1 in connection list failed! Jun 25 21:15:16 tomcat tinc[9291]: An IP packet (0800) for 192.168.9.1 from 192.168.9.100 Jun 25 21:15:16 tomcat tinc[9291]: fe:fd:c0:a8:09:64 to fe:fd:c0:a8:09:64 Jun 25 21:15:16 tomcat tinc[9291]: Trying to look up 192.168.9.1 in connection list failed! Jun 25 21:15:17 tomcat tinc[9291]: An IP packet (0800) for 192.168.9.1 from 192.168.9.100 Jun 25 21:15:17 tomcat tinc[9291]: fe:fd:c0:a8:09:64 to fe:fd:c0:a8:09:64 Jun 25 21:15:17 tomcat tinc[9291]: Trying to look up 192.168.9.1 in connection list failed! *** CLIENT side log when I shut down tinc *** Jun 25 21:15:28 tomcat tinc[9291]: Got TERM signal Jun 25 21:15:29 tomcat tinc[9291]: Sending TERMREQ to 192.168.9.1 ((null)) Jun 25 21:15:29 tomcat tinc[9291]: Terminating Jun 25 21:15:29 tomcat tinc[9291]: Total bytes written: tap 0, socket 0; bytes read: tap 300, socket 0 *** SERVER side log when I shut down tinc *** Jun 25 21:15:28 lemon tinc.9[21698]: Got request from 192.168.9.100 (213.54.42.228): 30 c0a80964 Jun 25 21:15:28 lemon tinc.9[21698]: Got unauthorized TERMREQ from 192.168.9.100 (213.54.42.228) Jun 25 21:15:28 lemon tinc.9[21698]: Error while processing request from 192.168.9.100 (213.54.42.228) Jun 25 21:15:28 lemon tinc.9[21698]: Closing connection with 192.168.9.100 (213.54.42.228) Jun 25 21:15:28 lemon tinc.9[21698]: Sending TERMREQ to 192.168.9.100 (213.54.42.228) Hope this helps! - Tinc: Discussion list about the tinc VPN daemon Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/ Tinc site: http://ftp.nl.linux.org/pub/linux/tinc/
Axel M?ller wrote:> I gave tinc1.0pre3 a test after the modifications you have done today. > It insists that it is still 1.0pre2 but this is due to the fact the you > used "1" as tag for configure.in rather than "CABAL".Sorry, my mistake. Fixed. -- Ivo Timmermans -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://brouwer.uvt.nl/pipermail/tinc/attachments/20000625/45842cb5/attachment.pgp
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, [ISO-8859-1] Axel Müller wrote:> I gave tinc1.0pre3 a test after the modifications you have done today. > It insists that it is still 1.0pre2 but this is due to the fact the you > used "1" as tag for configure.in rather than "CABAL". > Anyway - results were not much more successful than yesterday:The strange thing is:> *** SERVER side log file from startup until sone seconds after connection > was established ***[...]> Jun 25 21:14:49 lemon tinc.9[21698]: Sending PASSPHRASE to 192.168.9.100 > (213.54.42.228)And there it ends. The client seemingly doesn't receive the PASSPHRASE request, and doesn't send one back to the server. That's why no real connection is made. Could you try to do exactly the same except that you try it with indirectdata=no on both sides? I want to know if that makes a difference. I have tested a similar setup with indirectdata=no myself, and at least a connection is made, and the packets are nicely sent to the uplink instead of directly to the destination, and the uplink forwards them properly... ------------------------------------------- Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards, Guus Sliepen <guus@sliepen.warande.net> ------------------------------------------- See also: http://tinc.nl.linux.org/ http://www.kernelbench.org/ ------------------------------------------- - Tinc: Discussion list about the tinc VPN daemon Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/ Tinc site: http://ftp.nl.linux.org/pub/linux/tinc/