110 reputation
115
bio website
location
age
visits member for 3 years, 8 months
seen 17 hours ago

Nov
11
awarded  Famous Question
Mar
21
awarded  Notable Question
Nov
9
awarded  Popular Question
Jun
13
accepted OpenSwan IPSec phase #2 complications
Jun
12
revised OpenSwan IPSec phase #2 complications
more debug data
Jun
12
revised OpenSwan IPSec phase #2 complications
added more debug data
Jun
12
revised OpenSwan IPSec phase #2 complications
added 2369 characters in body
Jun
12
comment OpenSwan IPSec phase #2 complications
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the remote end is not behind a NAT device, so enabling NAT traversal will probably not help in this case. However, UDP port 4500 was indeed not forwarded on our end (as it passed ipsec verify with NAT-T enabled) - it is now. Sadly, the outcome is still the same. Is there anything else I can do to debug this?
Jun
12
revised OpenSwan IPSec phase #2 complications
spelling, formatting
Jun
12
comment OpenSwan IPSec phase #2 complications
Thank you for your answer. I will try your recommendation today and report back.
Jun
11
comment OpenSwan IPSec phase #2 complications
@ShaneMadden: unsure, but I think it's disabled, as 192.168.x.x was not in use
Jun
11
asked OpenSwan IPSec phase #2 complications
Jan
15
awarded  Commentator
Jan
15
comment List all DNS records in a domain using dig?
same as dig -t AXFR domain.name
Jan
7
awarded  Supporter
Oct
18
awarded  Editor
Oct
9
comment identifying and cloning the superblock of a raid0 mdadm v0.90 array
don't blame me for being incompetent and inattentive yourself, it is not my fault that you struggle with reading and comprehension - you decided to take it out me when i merely reminded you that i have already provided this information. apparently, due to your own personal insecurities that you try to hide and cover by asking useless and worthless questions that (bit about 1.2 metadata and 0.90 is a good example) have already been answered in full. arrogance, you can't be serious? you got SO angry by just being reminded of basic established facts - obviously your arrogance-o-meeter hit the top
Oct
9
comment identifying and cloning the superblock of a raid0 mdadm v0.90 array
for 1.2, not 0.90
Oct
9
comment identifying and cloning the superblock of a raid0 mdadm v0.90 array
take a look at the thread's name. blatantly says "0.90", does it not? also, what do you mean by "mdadm -E works fine and shows the info, actually" - i never said it did not, huh? btw, it only shows the superblock offsets for 1.2
Oct
9
comment identifying and cloning the superblock of a raid0 mdadm v0.90 array
Version : 0.90.00 as i've already said