On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 15:45 -0500, Chris Buechler wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:42 PM, mayak-cq <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 15:13 -0500, Chris Buechler wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:07 PM, mayak-cq <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 14:55 -0500, Chris Buechler wrote: > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Chris Buechler <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 1:05 PM, mayak-cq <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> hi all, > >> > > >> > <snip> > >> > > >> > Actually that may not be exactly right - I have my tun interfaces > >> > assigned where I'm seeing that. Is your tun interface assigned under > >> > Interfaces>assign? > >> > > >> > Good Day My Lord, > >> > > >> > Yes -- openvpn has an interface declared on the server side :-) > >> > > >> > >> What about the client side? Server side doesn't matter. > > > > > > Thanks Again My Lord! > > > > So -- the client machine is a vanilla "clone" of a 1.23 install -- only > > custom arguments on client are: > > > > ns-cert-type server; verb 4 > > > > Which (in theory) shouldn't cause the server to "NAT" the pool > > address ... > > > > You're not answering my question, is the tun interface assigned under > Interfaces>assign on the client? My Lord,
You're a genius! Nuking the the interface declaration solves it!! Intermediate solution yes, but a solution nonetheless! Thanks M --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
