On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 18:23:08 -0800
Paul B. Henson hen...@acm.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 01:48:06PM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
on the other side? Right now it looks like the client is setting a
route to 10.0.0.0/8 across the tunnel, that should actually be
10.128.0.0/16, would
On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 18:42:11 -0800
Paul B. Henson hen...@acm.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 07:41:10PM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
I could repeat the problem. ospfd seems not to be able to use routes
set by npppd. The problem seems to be come from pppx(4)'s behavior of
its link state.
From: YASUOKA Masahiko
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 1:48 AM
framed-ip-netmask in npppd-user to set the netmask of the route to
the PPP link. But it is not to set the client netmask (on iPhone).
AFAIK to set the client netmask, DHCP inform can be used.
Hmm, I thought the VPN client
From: YASUOKA Masahiko
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:20 AM
% ospfctl show fib | grep 128
*56 10.128.120.0/24 127.0.0.1
*56 10.128.120.213/3210.0.0.1
Interesting, not only does it show a /24 route, it looks like it has it
marked as valid. Is this with pppx
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:50:10 -0800
Paul B. Henson hen...@acm.org wrote:
From: YASUOKA Masahiko
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 1:48 AM
framed-ip-netmask in npppd-user to set the netmask of the route to
the PPP link. But it is not to set the client netmask (on iPhone).
AFAIK to set the
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:55:51 -0800
Paul B. Henson hen...@acm.org wrote:
From: YASUOKA Masahiko
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:20 AM
% ospfctl show fib | grep 128
*56 10.128.120.0/24 127.0.0.1
*56 10.128.120.213/3210.0.0.1
Interesting, not only does it show
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:41:16 -0800
Paul B. Henson hen...@acm.org wrote:
I'm currently setting up an L2TP VPN with npppd. I've got the VPN piece
working, and can send packets between the client and the openbsd box
running the vpn. However, I'm currently using ospfd for routing between
the rest
Hi, it's not a good idea to distribute /32 routes around your routing domain as
it will make convergence times longer and adds unnecessary load to the other
routers. OSPF and other routing daemons like summary routes. I'm guessing
you've assigned a 'unique' /24 network for the VPN clients which
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 01:48:06PM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
on the other side? Right now it looks like the client is setting a
route to 10.0.0.0/8 across the tunnel, that should actually be
10.128.0.0/16, would setting the netmask in npppd-users fix that remote
route? Can I set the
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 07:41:10PM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
I could repeat the problem. ospfd seems not to be able to use routes
set by npppd. The problem seems to be come from pppx(4)'s behavior of
its link state.
Using tun(4) instead of pppx(4) avoid the problem.
If I switch
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 11:55:28AM +, Andy Lemin wrote:
Hi, it's not a good idea to distribute /32 routes around your routing
domain as it will make convergence times longer and adds unnecessary
load to the other routers. OSPF and other routing daemons like summary
routes. I'm guessing
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:41:16 -0800
Paul B. Henson hen...@acm.org wrote:
I'm currently setting up an L2TP VPN with npppd. I've got the VPN piece
working, and can send packets between the client and the openbsd box
running the vpn. However, I'm currently using ospfd for routing between
the rest
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 11:23:01AM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
I'm not sure whether it works. Can you try it by static route?
A static route on the network on the other side of the openbsd box? I'm
sure that would work; when I try to ping a box out in the network from
the vpn client, I can
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 19:42:26 -0800
Paul B. Henson hen...@acm.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 11:23:01AM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
I'm not sure whether it works. Can you try it by static route?
A static route on the network on the other side of the openbsd box? I'm
sure that would
14 matches
Mail list logo
