John Nielsen wrote: >>># "Public" interface -- 192.168.1.2 netmask 255.255.255.252" >>>ifconfig_ed0="DHCP" >>>gif_interfaces="gif0" >>>gifconfig_gif0="DSL.public.ip myend.public.ip" >>>ifconfig_gif0="192.168.6.1 192.168.0.1" >>>static_routes="john" >>>route_john="-net 192.168.0 -interface gif0" >> >>The problem (one part, at least) is that you use the same IP address >>(192.168.6.1) on your xl0 and gif0 interfaces (on both ends). You'll >>want the tunnel addresses to be in a different subnet. > > I have another tunnel set up this way and it works fine. Why should the > tunnel addresses be on a different subnet?
Because your routing table will have an entry that says "to reach net X use gateway Y", and there will appear to be multiple ways to reach gateway Y if you have multiple addresses attached to the same subnet. Also, assigning the same IP address to multiple interfaces is usually a bad idea. (It is useful in some setups, but this ain't one.) Add encapsulation, and you've a fine example of black hole due to infinite encapsulation. >>Also, the netmask in the infconfig_xl0 line doesn't match the comment, >>which one is wrong? > > The public interface (ed0) always gets the same address from the DSL modem, > even though it's using DHCP. I think you associated the comment with the > wrong ifconfig line (I've added a break between them to clarify). Oh, you're right, sorry. But then you're assigning the same IP address to THREE interfaces! > I'm starting to think that it would be easier to use ppp/tun and ssh rather > than gif in this instance, even though I'm less familiar with that > arrangement. I'm willing to bet a beer that these problems will dissappear if you pick different subnets and IP addresses for your interfaces. This is a pretty straightforward setup. Lars -- Lars Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> USC Information Sciences Institute
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
