On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 10:47 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote: > > If your OpenVPN server is going to add routes to hosts in the 192.168.2.0/24 > network then simply add this line to your route_rules file: > > - 192.168.2.0/24 254 1001 > > Solving the OpenVPN routing problem was one of the main reasons for creating > the route_rules file in the first place.
Yes, a table before the provider tables was the other solution I was thinking of. I was looking to solve the more general problem of routing-happens-in-the-main table. OpenVPN was just the example I had on hand. I guess in general, I'd just like to see shorewall work better with dynamic routing than it does -- with less before-hand preparation. Do you think my proposed routing rules/tables reorganization would not achieve that, or not work at all? b.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
