I don't know, I set out to route.
I've gotten a couple complaints of how this wastes address space, so
I've talked to our network administrator and asked if there was a way to
reduce the waste of the address space. He said I could use a
255.255.255.252 subnet mask:
192.168.200.4 (NA)
192.168.200.5 - 192.168.200.6
192.168.200.7 (Broadcast)
192.168.200.8 (NA)
192.168.200.9 - 192.168.200.10
192.168.200.11 (Broadcast)
And you can figure out how the rest is continued.
I have not tried this yet, but will be within a day or so. This should
quell some of the complaints of waste of the address space.
Doug
Raymond wrote:
.. the other taps had to be on completely separate network <<
If utilizing bridging, are the separate subnets for every tunnel still
required?
Wouldn't this defeat a primary attribute of bridging: broadcasting?
Raymond
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's
Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin.
Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click
_______________________________________________
Openvpn-users mailing list
Openvpn-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users
____________________________________________
Openvpn-users mailing list
Openvpn-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users
|