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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox