btw i am able to ping A and B, but not C from A On Machine A
root@homer1:/etc/tinc/erix# ping 10.16.66.199 PING 10.16.66.199 (10.16.66.199) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 10.16.66.199: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=22.4 ms 64 bytes from 10.16.66.199: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=20.2 ms ^C --- 10.16.66.199 ping statistics --- 2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 20.263/21.336/22.409/1.073 ms root@homer1:/etc/tinc/erix# route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 em1 10.16.66.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 erix 172.17.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 docker0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 em1 On Machine B root@raspberrypi:/etc/tinc/erix# ping 192.168.1.150 PING 192.168.1.150 (192.168.1.150) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.150: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=21.4 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.150: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=20.5 ms ^C --- 192.168.1.150 ping statistics --- 2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 20.500/20.995/21.490/0.495 ms root@raspberrypi:/etc/tinc/erix# route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 0.0.0.0 10.16.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 10.16.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 erix On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Zia Syed <[email protected]> wrote: > On Machine B (notice new IP :( ) > > root@raspberrypi:/etc/tinc/erix# tincd -n erix -d 3 > > root@raspberrypi:/etc/tinc/erix# route -n > Kernel IP routing table > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use > Iface > 0.0.0.0 10.16.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 > eth0 > 10.16.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 > eth0 > > root@raspberrypi:/etc/tinc/erix# INTERFACE=erix /etc/tinc/erix/tinc-up > RTNETLINK answers: File exists > > > On Machine A > root@homer1:/etc/tinc/erix# tincd -n erix -d 3 > > root@homer1:/etc/tinc/erix# route -n > Kernel IP routing table > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use > Iface > 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 em1 > 172.17.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 > docker0 > 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 em1 > > root@homer1:/etc/tinc/erix# INTERFACE=erix /etc/tinc/erix/tinc-up > RTNETLINK answers: File exists > > > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Guus Sliepen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 12:33:10PM -0700, Zia Syed wrote: >> >> > Thanks guys. First off, i removed the 15.0.0.0 and now I can am not >> able to >> > ping even A and B. Here is the updated network diagram. >> > http://cl.ly/image/0E1n0s1v043u >> > >> > On Machine A: >> > --------------------------- >> > ubuntu@homer:/etc/tinc/erix$ more hosts/esprit1 >> > Subnet = 192.168.1.0/32 >> > Address = <Public IP> >> >> The Subnet should be 192.168.1.0/24, not /32. >> >> > On Machine B: >> > --------------------------- >> > pi@raspberrypi /etc/tinc/erix $ more hosts/pi >> > Subnet = 10.16.50.0/32 >> >> Here it's the same, it should be 10.16.50.0/24. >> >> > ubuntu@homer1:/etc/tinc/erix$ route -n >> > Kernel IP routing table >> > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use >> > Iface >> > 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 >> em1 >> > 172.17.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 >> > docker0 >> > 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 >> em1 >> [...] >> > Even though I have 'ip route add .." in both tinc-up, i dont see the >> route >> > in 'route -n'. >> >> Hm. When tinc is started, what happens if you run the tinc-up script by >> hand like this? >> >> INTERFACE=erix /etc/tinc/erix/tinc-up >> >> > pi@raspberrypi /etc/tinc/erix $ ping 192.168.1.150 >> > PING 192.168.1.150 (192.168.1.150) 56(84) bytes of data. >> > From 192.168.1.150 icmp_seq=1 Destination Net Unknown >> >> That's tinc telling you it doesn't know about the IP address >> 192.168.1.150, because you added /32 instead of /24 Subnets in the host >> config files. >> >> > Could this be I am not setting the gateway for this route correctly on >> B? >> >> You should not have to set a gateway. The rest of your configuration >> looks fine to me, so the only problems are the Subnets and the fact that >> the routes are not added by the tinc-up script. >> >> -- >> Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards, >> Guus Sliepen <[email protected]> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> tinc mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.tinc-vpn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinc >> >> >
_______________________________________________ tinc mailing list [email protected] http://www.tinc-vpn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinc
