On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 07:49:21PM +0100, Hinnack wrote: >> You should change the ifconfig netmask in tinc-up to 255.255.255.255. > > This made the route go away. But is this the right way to configure tinc? > To give the tinc interface an IP (with 255.255.255.255 subnetmask) from the > local (green) network it does route the traffic to?
Yes. > Does it make sense to give the tinc interface an 192.168.0.253 IP, when the > net here is 192.168.0.0/24 on eth1 Sure. It would be even better to give the tinc interface the same IP address as eth1. Interfaces can share the same addresses and subnets, that is not a problem at all. What ultimately matters is the routing table, as it decides which packets go where. > I can not find such a sample, that clarifies where to use which net/ip. > In your documentation > on http://www.tinc-vpn.org/documentation/tinc_4.html#How-connections-work > why is there not route in tinc-up for "Branch A". This doc says nothing > about routes anyway... There is no route command in tinc-up, since ifconfig with a netmask other than 255.255.255.255 will ensure a route is added automatically. The documentation does briefly mention adding routes in section 7.2, but please understand that I do not want to document all possible interface/route/firewall configurations in tinc's manual. -- Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards, Guus Sliepen <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ tinc mailing list [email protected] http://www.tinc-vpn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinc
