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

[Openvpn-users] routing table problem (i think


  • Subject: [Openvpn-users] routing table problem (i think
  • From: "Tielman Esterhuizen" <tielman.esterhuizen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 20:01:23 +1000

Hi all,

Probably an old problem but I can't find any information on it ( and I don't see how I'm the only one who has this problem):

Solaris 9 with:
OpenVPN 2.0.9
ipfilter 4.1.22 (just in case there is some issue here)

Solaris as server and testing with XP client config. Configuration is basically sample config files. I get the VPN link up but I can't route any traffic from client apart from remote server VPN interface. I get a default route but it seems wrong:

("route print" on XP client)

Active Routes:
Network Destination        Netmask          Gateway       Interface  Metric
          0.0.0.0          0.0.0.0         10.8.0.5        10.8.0.6       1
         10.8.0.1  255.255.255.255         10.8.0.5        10.8.0.6       1
         10.8.0.4  255.255.255.252         10.8.0.6        10.8.0.6       30
         10.8.0.6  255.255.255.255        127.0.0.1       127.0.0.1       30

-------
(ipconfig)

Ethernet adapter OpenVPN:

        Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . :
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 10.8.0.6
        Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.252
        Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 10.8.0.5



On server:

[root@molfis /]# netstat -rn

Routing Table: IPv4
  Destination           Gateway           Flags  Ref   Use   Interface
-------------------- -------------------- ----- ----- ------ ---------
10.8.0.2             10.8.0.1             UH        1      1  tun0
10.8.0.0             10.8.0.2             UG        1      1
192.168.1.0          192.168.1.12         U         1      2  eri0
224.0.0.0            192.168.1.12         U         1      0  eri0
default              192.168.1.254        UG        1     98
127.0.0.1            127.0.0.1            UH       11  38696  lo0

[root@molfis /]# ifconfig -a
lo0: flags=1000849<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST,IPv4> mtu 8232 index 2
        inet 127.0.0.1 netmask ff000000
eri0: flags=1000843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,IPv4> mtu 1500 index 3
        inet 192.168.1.12 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
        ether 0:3:ba:c:aa:1c
lo0: flags=2000849<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST,IPv6> mtu 8252 index 2
        inet6 ::1/128
eri0: flags=2000841<UP,RUNNING,MULTICAST,IPv6> mtu 1500 index 3
        ether 0:3:ba:c:aa:1c
        inet6 fe80::203:baff:fe0c:aa1c/10
tun0: flags=10008d1<UP,POINTOPOINT,RUNNING,NOARP,MULTICAST,IPv4> mtu 1500 index 11
        inet 10.8.0.1 --> 10.8.0.2 netmask ffffffff
        ether 0:0:0:0:0:0


What looks wierd to me is the fact that the client has a default route of ...5 and it should be 1. If I change it to 1 (configure the interface on XP) then nothing works. On the other hand I can ping (and tracert) the remote server interface so something is working.

As I said my config is standard so I'd expect it work. Have tried various config changes but default route always is 5 (??)

On XP:

cygwin-bash-3.2$ tracert 10.8.0.1

Tracing route to 10.8.0.1 over a maximum of 30 hops

  1   546 ms     5 ms     5 ms  10.8.0.1
Trace complete.

cygwin-bash-3.2$ tracert 99.99.99.99

Tracing route to 99.99.99.99 over a maximum of 30 hops

  1     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  2     *        * ...

----------

On Solaris:

[root@molfis /]# traceroute 10.8.0.6
traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using 10.8.0.1 @ tun0
traceroute to 10.8.0.6 (10.8.0.6), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  * * 10.8.0.6 (10.8.0.6)  3389.165 ms


[root@molfis /]# traceroute 99.99.99.99
traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using 192.168.1.12 @ eri0
traceroute to 99.99.99.99 ( 99.99.99.99), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  speedtouch.lan (X.X.X.X)  7.545 ms  84.724 ms  100.032 ms
 2  blah blah blah  15.125 ms  13.620 ms  15.965 ms
 3  blah blah blah  13.390 ms !N  15.704 ms !N  12.800 ms !N


Sure hope someone can help.

Thanks
Tielman