From: tony.chamberlain@lemko.com
To: linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org
Subject: ppp / open vpn
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:20:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <W90767349010091294791641@webmail30> (raw)
For our customers I have to set up an openvpn server and client.
Our cell software creates Linux tunnels (e.g. tun0, tun1) when a cell
phone wants to do a data session. Subsequently on startup our software
kills all the tunnels. Unfortunately, it then kills the VPN client (this
on the client side).
So to get around this, a person at work changed in the ovpn file
dev tun0 to dev ppp0 so it would not get killed. As far as I understand
though, openvpn is not ppp. I am wondering whether this will cause any
problems in CentOS, calling a tunnel ppp?
On a related note they want me to write something called "reroute" which
has a parameter (-V or -E) which will reroute all traffic, except
192.168.5.10, either via VPN or via ETHERNET. 192.168.5.10 will always
go through VPN so I gave it its own route. Basically what it does:
Through VPN:
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 128.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 ppp0
128.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 128.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 ppp0
0.0.0.0 192.168.5.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
Through eth0 just
0.0.0.0 192.168.5.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
I could remove the 0.0.0.0 with netmask 0.0.0.0 when routing through the
VPN but I don't want to forget what the original router (192.168.5.1) is.
So a question is, what has precedence, 0.0.0.0 with netmask 0.0.0.0 or
0.0.0.0 and 128.0.0.0 with a netmask of 128.0.0.0? They bothe appear to
cover every address (not specifically specified in a previous route which I did not show).
For completion, here is the full set of routes:
10.6.1.50 192.168.5.15 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth0
192.168.5.10 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0
192.168.5.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
10.4.55.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
10.0.0.0 192.168.5.15 255.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 128.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 ppp0
128.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 128.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 ppp0
0.0.0.0 192.168.5.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
ppp0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00
inet addr:10.1.0.6 P-t-P:10.1.0.6 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)
we need the ip address 10.0.1.6
10.4.55.X should definitely be eth0
next reply other threads:[~2011-01-12 0:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-12 0:20 tony.chamberlain [this message]
2011-01-12 14:57 ` ppp / open vpn James Carlson
2011-01-12 15:17 ` tony.chamberlain
2011-01-12 15:29 ` James Carlson
2011-01-12 21:17 ` Jan Just Keijser
2011-01-12 21:26 ` James Carlson
2011-01-13 1:47 ` Jan Just Keijser
2011-01-13 12:41 ` tony.chamberlain
2011-01-13 14:02 ` Charlie Brady
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=W90767349010091294791641@webmail30 \
--to=tony.chamberlain@lemko.com \
--cc=linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.