On Friday 01 October 2004 16:21, Leon Garde wrote:
> The other way to route by source is to use a rule like this
>
> 'ipfw add 1 fwd 192.168.10.2 from 192.168.0.3 to any '
Thanks! That did the job, and now 192.168.0.3 is being routed to the inet via
tun0.
on HOST_B (local router), rules now
Confusion 1. nat replaces routing.
Mikail says he cant get routing to work, so he is using nat.
Seems to me that to get nat going, he needs to fix the routing.
Confusion 2.
The sentiment "routing is hard" is wrong. Routing is easy.
routes specify where to send a packet based on where it is g
On Friday 01 October 2004 08:18, Mikhail P. wrote:
> Basically we got back to the point where we
> all started - I can ping remote party (HOST_B) from 192.168.0.x, but no
> further.
Sorry, supposed to be HOST_A in above sentence.
regards,
M.
___
[EMAIL
On Friday 01 October 2004 07:38, Juhani Tali wrote:
>
> ipfw add 4 divert 8568 ip from 192.168.0.3 to any out xmit tun0
> ipfw add 6 divert 8568 ip from any to any in recv tun0
>
>
> replace these with
> ipfw add 4 divert 8568 ip from 192.168.0.3 to any
> prior to this rule the packet was
Mikhail P. wrote:
On Friday 01 October 2004 06:51, Juhani Tali wrote:
Did not quite understand what you meant here.
ended up running natd on tun0 of HOST_B as:
natd -interface rl1
natd -port 8568 -interface tun0
I should have read it as HOST_A, because HOST_B does not have a rl1,
only rl
On Friday 01 October 2004 06:51, Juhani Tali wrote:
> I would set it up like so:
>
> This one in host B
>
> > natd -interface rl1
>
> And this in host A
>
> > natd -port 8568 -interface tun0
>
> You need to translate all the 192.168.0.x to tunnel's address and you
> cannot do it in host B, because
Hello FreeBSD Users,
I have been playing with OpenVPN for a while, and have successfully configured
pretty simple tunnel between local router (FreeBSD, which NATs LAN into inet)
and remote host.
Now my next target is to route some of the computers in the LAN into above VPN
tunnel - that's wher
