On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Nikolaos Milas <nmi...@noa.gr> wrote:
> On 26/9/2015 10:34 μμ, Gert Doering wrote: > > > I wonder if just pre-setting all the NAT mappings wouldn't be much > > easier? So, you know that your server is handing out 192.168.1.x - so > > why not just initialize the SNAT so that ever .x address is NATted > > to .150+(x mod 6) and done? > > > > (Now I'm prone myself to do fancy scripts for stuff, but then I'm also > > totally lazy, so if there is an easy way... :-) ) > > > > gert > > > > Yes, that could be done of course. Each approach has its advantages. > That solution has the advantage of a more static configuration, zero > connect/disconnect effort (no scripts to create and run), and permanent > private-public IP Address mappings (traceability). Yet, you can't > exclude the possibility of having users using the same public IP > Address, even if there are few of them concurrently connected, thus > resulting in possible poor performance for them. > I am just being curious: by poor performance do you mean run out of port numbers? is that really a concern with only 5 concurrent users on the average? Selva
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Openvpn-users mailing list Openvpn-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users
