Ok here is my topology and configurations. I'm kinda lost here. The error I am getting is.....
BGP state = Idle (No route to multi-hop neighbor)
Building configuration... !! IOS XR Configuration 6.1.3 !! Last configuration change at Thu Jan 20 15:51:35 2022 by pdoty ! domain lookup disable interface Loopback0 ipv4 address 18.104.22.168 255.255.255.0 ! interface MgmtEth0/0/CPU0/0 shutdown ! interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0/0 shutdown ! interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0/1 ipv4 address 172.16.200.2 255.255.0.0 ! interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0/2 shutdown ! router ospf 1 router-id 22.214.171.124 area 0 interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0/1 neighbor 172.16.200.1 ! ! ! router bgp 100 address-family ipv4 unicast ! neighbor 126.96.36.199 remote-as 200 ebgp-multihop 255 update-source Loopback0 ignore-connected-check address-family ipv4 unicast ! ! ! end
interface Loopback0 ip address 188.8.131.52 255.255.255.0 ! interface FastEthernet0/0 ip address 192.168.100.1 255.255.255.0 ip ospf 1 area 0 duplex auto speed auto ! interface FastEthernet0/1 ip address 172.16.200.1 255.255.0.0 ip ospf 1 area 0 duplex auto speed auto ! interface FastEthernet1/0 no ip address shutdown duplex auto speed auto ! router ospf 1 router-id 184.108.40.206 log-adjacency-changes ! router bgp 1 no synchronization bgp log-neighbor-changes network 220.127.116.11 network 18.104.22.168 neighbor 22.214.171.124 remote-as 100 neighbor 126.96.36.199 update-source Loopback0 neighbor 188.8.131.52 next-hop-self neighbor 184.108.40.206 remote-as 200 neighbor 220.127.116.11 update-source Loopback0 neighbor 18.104.22.168 next-hop-self no auto-summary
... keep reading on reddit ➡
cdp advertise v1 interface Loopback0 ipv4 address 22.214.171.124 255.255.255.0 ! interface MgmtEth0/0/CPU0/0 shutdown ! interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0/0 cdp ! interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0/0.10 ipv4 address 192.168.10.2 255.255.255.0 encapsulation dot1q 10 ! interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0/0.20 ipv4 address 192.168.20.2 255.255.255.0 encapsulation dot1q
[NEW] Multi-Hop for WireGuard protocol
[NEW] Native iOS Kill Switch to block all traffic when VPN tunnel is dropped or unavailable
[NEW] Keep user settings on log out with an option to clear settings
[NEW] WireGuard diagnostic logs
[IMPROVED] Migrate to WireGuardKit framework
[IMPROVED] Upgrade WireGuard to the latest version
[FIXED] Current WiFi name not available, fixed for iOS 15.1+ devices
[FIXED] IPV4/IPV6 tabs displayed in connection info when there is no internet connection
as per title
[New] Multi-Hop for WireGuard protocol
[New] Option to keep app settings on logout
[New] Server sorting by proximity
[Improved] Descriptions and UI overall
[Fixed] IVPN tile in the quick settings
F-Droid in progress
Desktop and iOS releases with WireGuard Multi-hop are scheduled for early next week.
I am trying to setup Double Chain Wireguard (Multi Hop VPN)
I want to connect to a VPS and on that VPS it connects to a VPN via wireguard.
I wonder what should I do to forward all traffic from client to VPN
I follow this topic but it doesn't work
I’ve been trying out various server’s with Surfshark to get back into Netflix and so far I have had no issues using the multi-hop servers rather than a single location. I know it for sure works for the UK —> Germany server since I watched an entire movie on it. I’d be curious to hear if anyone else has had success with other Multi-hops!
I have several Wireguard servers hosted on Ubuntu VPS servers. There are peers setup on each VPN server. I have the servers setup in "mesh" configuration and they're all able to ping each other directly. The servers have ipv4 forwarding enabled. I can connect to each server as a peer and have my internet connection routed through that server.
I would like to forward some peers through multiple Wireguard servers (multi-hop) while also leaving some peers to connect to the internet via the first Wireguard hop. Eventually I intend to control this dynamically with a node app executing the relevant iptables rules as required (or whatever the solution may be)
Peer 1 > Server 1 > Server 2 > Internet
Peer 2 > Server 1 > Internet
Peer 3 > Server 3 > Internet
Peer 4 > Server 2 > Server 1 > Internet
Would this be possible with iptables rules? I have spent a couple of days reading similar posts and trying things. The closest I have come is setting the following on Server1:
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -s 10.42.1.4(Peer1) -j DNAT --to-destination 10.42.1.2(Server2) iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o wg0 -j MASQUERADE
Using tcpdump -n -v -i wg0 I can see packets being passed from Server1 to Server2 but it looks like the MASQUERADE rule is altering the destination IP? I tried adding iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d 10.42.1.2 -j SNAT --to-source 10.42.1.4
too but it appears to stop any traffic flowing from Server1 to Server2.
I have a Type 7 that can currently hold 264 cargo, and max hop distance when full cargo is 16 ly, no cargo is 28 ly. When selecting max hop distance on eddb, do I do the full cargo distance range or no cargo distance range? Also, how accurate are the profits? Will I actually be making what the route says I will for “total profit”? just haven’t checked out the trade route stuff until now so I’m a bit confused.
Suppose Alice has bitcoins and wants to send them with maximal privacy, so she creates a special kind of transaction. For anyone looking at the blockchain her transaction appears completely normal with her coins seemingly going from bitcoin address A to address B. But in reality her coins end up in address Z which is entirely unconnected to either A or B.
Now imagine another user, Carol, who isn't too bothered by privacy and sends her bitcoin using a regular wallet. But because Carol's transaction looks exactly the same as Alice's, anybody analyzing the blockchain must now deal with the possibility that Carol's transaction actually sent her coins to a totally unconnected address. So Carol's privacy is improved even though she didn't change her behaviour, and perhaps had never even heard of this software.
In a world where advertisers, social media and other companies want to collect all of Alice's and Carol's data, such privacy improvement would be incredibly valuable. And also the doubt added to every transaction would greatly boost the fungibility of bitcoin and so make it a better form of money.
This undetectable privacy can be developed today by implementing CoinSwap. The software could be standalone as a kind of bitcoin mixing app, but it could also be a library that existing wallets can implement allowing their users to send Bitcoin transactions with much greater privacy.
For the last few months I've been working on implementing this project, and recently reached another milestone: Multi-hop CoinSwaps.
In the original CoinSwap design there would be only two peers involved, that meant if your wallet did a CoinSwap the other party knew exactly where your coins went. They were a single point of failure in privacy. Multi-hop CoinSwap is where the user routes their coins of multiple CoinSwap peers, and all of them need to collude in order to figure out the final source and destination of the coins.
Just for fun I created a 5-hop CoinSwap on testnet. Each hop has 3 individual transactions:
Taker's outgoing transactions:
First maker funding transactions:
https://blockstream.info/testnet/tx/3d9b879866ad136f9fe6e80599e1b97d610b6330be3ab4aa7df4161fce... keep reading on reddit ➡
My understanding of lightning is pretty basic, so bear with me.
Lets say Alice wants to open a channel with Carol but they don't have a channel open yet. They both already have a channel open with Bob, so they route it through Bob to minimize fees. Is it possible for Bob to close his channel with Alice or Carol while Alice and Carol have not settled with each other yet? If so, what happens to Alice and Carol's payments to each other?
And does this behave any differently as you scale up the network and have more hops between Alice and Carol?
Is IVPN multi-hop equivalent to the ProtonVPN Secure Core?
In both cases, data flows through 2 servers.From Protons website (link):
Does the second point imply that network monitoring would be difficult on those servers?
For IVPN, I think all the servers are rented.
I would like to objectively understand which one (ProtonVpn Secure core vs IVPN multi-hop) will be more secure and private.
(i.e. are the above 2 points made by Proton just marketing or they do indeed make the service more secure/private)
Starlink > Netgear router > DD-WRT VPN Router
To access 192.168.100.1, I set a static route on the VPN router:
I was thinking that a static route to the Netgear would pass my request for 192.168.100.1 througn the static route I had set up in the Netgear router, but it doesn't. What am I missing?