On 6/16/08, Charlie Farinella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had set the iroute directive earlier and was able to ping through to
> the secondary interface from the server, but not from the other
> clients. Pushing the route has now allowed the other clients to see
> the interface as well. Thank
On Monday 16 June 2008, Thomas Charron wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Charlie Farinella
> >> 10.8.8.6 is pingable
> >> from this machine and traceroute shows it as one hop, I can ssh in,
> >> etc. I get simi
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Charlie Farinella
>> 10.8.8.6 is pingable
>> from this machine and traceroute shows it as one hop, I can ssh in,
>> etc. I get similar error messages (SIOCADDRT: Network is unreachable)
>>
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Charlie Farinella
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok thank you, here we go, I hope I can explain it well enough for people
> to understand.
Awesome, now THERE'S some raw data.
> I need to create a route from an XP client to 10.10.0.42 on the OpenBSD
> client. Atte
On Friday 13 June 2008, Ben Scott wrote:
> Suggested course of action:
>
> Use the "route" command to review the routing tables on the two
> computers. Just issue the command "route" with no arguments, and it
> should print the routing table. Or maybe "route -n" to prevent the
> system from wa
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Michael ODonnell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe the route command is used to identify/control
> which interface to use to reach a particular host/network
> [and which one(s) to handoff to in the default case(s)] for
> connections originating on the machine i
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... OpenVPN option like:
>
> push "route 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0";
FYI, all that ends up doing is have the openvpn daemon execute the
"route" command for you when the tunnel comes up. That's usually a
good thing, of
On Jun 13, 2008, at 13:03, Charlie Farinella wrote:
> I have tried various permutations of the
> above with no luck and feel like I am missing an important part of
> this
> puzzle.
I have to admit to hitting a parser exception on your network layout,
but it sounds like maybe on the machine w
> You're the second person to phrase it that way, "does the machine
> know that it's supposed to route traffic". Showing my ignorance
> I will ask how do I make sure it "knows" to do this. I thought
> running the route command did that, but apparently there's more.
I believe the route command
On Fri, June 13, 2008 4:23 pm, Charlie Farinella said:
> You're the second person to phrase it that way, "does the machine know
> that it's supposed to route traffic". Showing my ignorance I will ask
> how do I make sure it "knows" to do this. I thought running the route
> command did that, but
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Charlie Farinella
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're the second person to phrase it that way, "does the machine know
> that it's supposed to route traffic". Showing my ignorance I will ask
> how do I make sure it "knows" to do this. I thought running the route
>
On Friday 13 June 2008, Neil Joseph Schelly wrote:
> This doesn't sound like an OpenVPN thing at all. Does MachineB know
that it's
> supposed to route traffic between it's 10.8.0/24 network and it's
10.10.0/24
> network? If it knows that much, then OpenVPN doesn't have to be
involved at
> a
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> route add net 10.10.0.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 10.8.0.6
Also:
Make sure IP forwarding is enabled on both VPN gateways. You can check with
sysctl net.ipv4.ip_forward
and turn it on with
sysctl net.ipv4.
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Charlie Farinella
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have set "route add -net 10.10.0.10 -netmask 255.255.255.0 10.8.0.6"
Try this:
route add net 10.10.0.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 10.8.0.6
That's what I would use. I'm not sure if the syntax differences
between
This doesn't sound like an OpenVPN thing at all. Does MachineB know that it's
supposed to route traffic between it's 10.8.0/24 network and it's 10.10.0/24
network? If it knows that much, then OpenVPN doesn't have to be involved at
all and you just add the route as you specified.
-N
On Friday
On Friday 13 June 2008, Thomas Charron wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Charlie Farinella
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have 2 Openvpn clients.
> > MachineA (10.8.0.6)
> > MachineB (10.8.0.10)
> >
> > MachineA has 2 physical ethernet cards:
> >192.168.x.1
> >10.10.0.10
> >
> >
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Charlie Farinella
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have 2 Openvpn clients.
> MachineA (10.8.0.6)
> MachineB (10.8.0.10)
>
> MachineA has 2 physical ethernet cards:
>192.168.x.1
>10.10.0.10
>
> I need to add a route from MachineB (10.8.0.10) to the second ether
I have 2 Openvpn clients.
MachineA (10.8.0.6)
MachineB (10.8.0.10)
MachineA has 2 physical ethernet cards:
192.168.x.1
10.10.0.10
I need to add a route from MachineB (10.8.0.10) to the second ethernet
interface on MachineA (10.10.0.10). My clients can see and connect to
each other.
I
18 matches
Mail list logo
