Thanks for the review and comments. My notes interspersed below. On 1/6/2016 1:31 AM, j.witvl...@mindef.nl wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > When I was reading your message. Two possibilities came up: > a) smaller subnets take precedence over larger subnets, which can cause all > sorts of undesirable effects when you have overlapping networks (though not > appropriate in your case, I think) I don't think I have any overlapping networks. The VPN server LAN is 192.168.112.xx, while the remote client LAN is 192.168.123.xx.
> b) conflict between routes pushed by dhcp and openvpn. If the dhcp-lease time > is short, it two can have all sorts of "funny effects" Interesting thought I hadn't heard of before. I will have to do a little research and educating myself on this topic. I am running dnsmasq on my VPN server LAN. Most of the desktops get a set IP from the DHCP server where the lease time is specified as infinite. The other servers in the LAN have fixed IPs and are not DHCP enabled. So in that respect the DHCP environment in the LAN is mixed. > Next I just had a quick glance on the mentioned url.... > > What caught my attention was this: > On the VPN-server you have this line: > push "route 192.168.112.0 255.255.255.0" > > While your machine has this LAN config: > [root@sequoia ~]# ifconfig > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr aa:bb:00:9D:B2:49 > inet addr:192.168.112.50 Bcast:192.168.112.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 > .... > > You might have a conflict there.... I am going to need more explanation here, as I am not sure what you are describing. Showing the limits of my routing knowledge. I appreciate the feedback. -- Jeff Boyce, CF Meridian Environmental 2136 Westlake Ave. North Seattle, WA 98109 206-522-8282 www.meridianenv.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Openvpn-users mailing list Openvpn-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users
