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

Re: [Openvpn-users] winxp suspend/hibernate resume, interface up timing, dhcp problems


  • Subject: Re: [Openvpn-users] winxp suspend/hibernate resume, interface up timing, dhcp problems
  • From: "Adam V. Richards" <avrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 23:43:26 -0600 (MDT)

> The DHCPREQUEST and DHCPACK is probably just Windows making sure that after
> wakeup, the adapter properties are still current.  The dhcpd in the TAP-Win32
> driver will tell it "yes, the properties haven't changed" via the ACK.
>
> What does "route print" say?  Maybe there is a way to tweak the metric so the
> TAP interface keeps precedence.

Well, it appears I'm wrong -- while `route print' shows the old gw listed
first (probably in numeric order or something), its metric is higher than
the tun gw, which would indicate the tun gw still has "precedence".  This
is assuming that a higher metric means higher "cost".  Below is a snippet
of the routing table before and after the machine has resumed from a
standby:

BEFORE STANDBY:

c:\>route print 0*
...cut...
===========================================================================
Active Routes:
Network Dest     Netmask          Gateway       Interface  Metric
0.0.0.0          0.0.0.0    192.168.200.1   192.168.200.2       1
Default Gateway:     192.168.200.1
===========================================================================
Persistent Routes:
  None

AFTER STANDBY:

c:\>route print 0*
...cut...
===========================================================================
Active Routes:
Network Dest     Netmask          Gateway       Interface  Metric
0.0.0.0          0.0.0.0         10.1.1.1       10.1.1.10      30
0.0.0.0          0.0.0.0    192.168.200.1   192.168.200.2      1
Default Gateway:     192.168.200.1
===========================================================================
Persistent Routes:
  None

Indeed, the tun route *still* has precedence.  Therefore the addition of
the old gw would appear to be harmless, as it should *never* get chosen.
Should.  I'll run some more tests to confirm.

I previously thought the old route might be causing problems...
but perhaps it is something else.

Thanks.

-Adam