Technically wouldnt this be split tunneling , or in a sense ? You
usually only want one tunnel open from one host .. the security
implications of not enforcing that can be devastating.. ( eg - VPN to
the corp lan AND VPN to the Hacker lan simultaneously ) Might the client
be doing what its supposed to ? does the first one up always dominate ?
Mark
Mike Cherba wrote:
The 2 routes to the same host make sense. I'm actually opening 2
tunnels to the same VPN box. Using destination based routing I wanted
to make the traffic flow down different tunnels. Anyway, our guy in
Taiwan managed to get it working following my instructions and is going
to send me his test report.
-Mike
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 15:51 -0800, Bob Miller wrote:
Mike Cherba wrote:
10.0.0.100 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0
10.0.0.100 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp1
The oddest thing about your configuration is that you have two routes
to the same host. How do you expect the kernel to decide which tunnel
to use?
In fact, why do you have either of those routes? Does it help
if you remove them both?
_______________________________________________
EUGLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
