On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 5:07 PM Sebastian Arcus <s.ar...@open-t.co.uk> wrote:
> On 23/09/2022 14:48, Selva Nair wrote: > > Having said that, I took another look at the routing table on the > Win10 > > client and noticed something odd. The only /32 routes I could find > are > > 192.168.112.236 255.255.255.255 On-link > > 192.168.112.236 281 > > 192.168.112.255 255.255.255.255 On-link > > 192.168.112.236 281 > > > > the .236 address is the client , so I presume that the .255 address > is > > the VPN server IP ? If so, then you've got a very peculiar network > > issue, as you say your network range is 192.168.112.0/24 > > <http://192.168.112.0/24> . > > > > > > Windows always adds an onlink route to broadcast address --- that's what > > you are > > seeing with the route to 192.168.112.255, not a route to the "server". > > Nothing peculiar. > > > > One thing not clearly mentioned is whether the SMB "server" is on the > > VPN "server". > > If so, smb mount may be using a hostname that resolves as the VPN IP of > > the server. > > Or the VPN IP itself. Then SMB traffic will flow via the VPN. > > A very good point to raise indeed. The Samba server is the same machine > as the vpn server. I already thought of that, and I checked on the > Windows 10 client that the host name used to access the share does > indeed resolve to the internal lan ip of the samba/vpn server - > 192.168.112.1. Thank you for the suggestion though. > Are you sure? Check netstat to see established connections. SMB may not be resolving IP the way you think it does. If this was a routing issue with all traffic to the server going through the tunnel, the tunnel itself would not work at all because of circular routing. There is no way for SMB traffic to flow through the VPN tunnel other than the client using the VPN IP of the server. Check again. Selva
_______________________________________________ Openvpn-users mailing list Openvpn-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users
