Is there a difference between doing 192.168.0.0/16, vs having two routes of 192.168.0.0/24 and 192.168.5.0/24?
My thinking, flawed as it is, is: 1. Both hosts have known routing tables that allow them to communicate. 2. At each host, define an additional route that utilizes the existing routes. something like - (since this is Windows): route add 192.168.5.6 10.59.97.8 (on VirtualBox) - and then - route add 192.168.5.119 192.168.5.6 I don't see a reason to add any routes to the Windows client - it's already talking. But since I've tried this and it doesn't work - obviously I'm missing something. --- Daniel On 2015-08-19 02:24, Doug Lytle wrote: > Erich Titl wrote: >>> I already have 192.168.0.0/24 routes on the Windows client >> >> This route does not cover 192.168.5.x > > To expand on that just a little bit. > > 192.168.0.0/24 only covers 192.168.0.1-254, you'd want /16 > > Doug > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Openvpn-users mailing list > Openvpn-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Openvpn-users mailing list Openvpn-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users
