Hi Steffen, I'm using version 1.0.23, as I need a proven solution (stable) for these purposes. I did not know the LocalDiscovery option, thanks! It will not always work (sometimes there's multiple NAT with docker), but I can worry about that later.
Cheers! Eric On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Steffen Vogel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Which version are you using? I have similar issues with the newest > 1.1pre10. > > Did you check out the ‚LocalDiscovery‘ option? > For 1.1, you also can get more information about the actual connection > mode by using the ‚info [node]‘ command. > > Cheers, > > Steffen > > > Am 05.12.2014 um 12:26 schrieb Eric Feliksik <[email protected]>: > > > > Dear all, > > > > I have 3 nodes: A, B and C. C has external IP and A and B are behind NAT. > > > > It turns out A and B route their traffic via the C, which they ConnectTo > with; this instead of getting connection details from one another and > contacting eachother directly (mesh style). The reason is, as I conclude > from tincd debug output, is that they see the peer as having a minimum MTU > of 0. I suspect this is because both nodes happen to be behind the same NAT > and thus have the same public IP, in this particular case. > > > > If I place the nodes in different NATed enviroments (different public > IP's) it does work. > > > > Can this be fixed in a way such that nodes A and B do directly > communicate? > > > > Thanks in advance, > > Eric > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ tinc mailing list [email protected] http://www.tinc-vpn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinc
