[OpenVPN home] [Date Prev] [Date Index] [Date Next]
[OpenVPN mailing lists] [Thread Prev] [Thread Index] [Thread Next]
Google
 
Web openvpn.net

Re: [Openvpn-users] tun or tap


  • Subject: Re: [Openvpn-users] tun or tap
  • From: cbowe <info@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: 07 Mar 2004 11:39:27 -0500

>Yes, the usual dance is to route the whole subnet over the VPN, but
>have
>a special direct host route between the actual VPN server machines, so
>the VPN doesn't try to route into itself which would cause a routing
>loop.
>
>James

All of the addresses I'm dealing with are in public space eg:

SMTP(a.b.x.x)  <-|-> Linux(a.b.x.x) <--> XP(x.x.x.x)
MySQL(a.b.x.x) <-|
Samba(a.b.x.x) <-|

Would you do this with tap and create the "direct host route" with
--route?

Does the tap(or tun) on the linux box use an address in the a.b.x.x
range?

They want the XP laptops to have access to these services when not on
site. The SMTP server is the only one I don't have direct control of. Do
you think this is the right approach?

Colin





____________________________________________
Openvpn-users mailing list
Openvpn-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users