From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23CA01381F3 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 20:40:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6DB97E085E; Wed, 22 May 2013 20:40:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail0131.smtp25.com (mail0131.smtp25.com [75.126.84.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A355E0844 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 20:40:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ccs.covici.com (s-out-001.smtp25.com [67.228.91.90]) by d-out-001.smtp25.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id r4MKeV8q027250 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 16:40:31 -0400 Received: from ccs.covici.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ccs.covici.com (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4MKeUH9017495 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 16:40:30 -0400 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] VPN vs LAN address hostname resolution In-reply-to: <519D021D.2050006@orlitzky.com> References: <519CF41B.5040108@gmail.com> <519D021D.2050006@orlitzky.com> Comments: In-reply-to Michael Orlitzky message dated "Wed, 22 May 2013 13:36:29 -0400." X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 16:40:30 -0400 Message-ID: <17494.1369255230@ccs.covici.com> From: covici@ccs.covici.com X-SpamH-OriginatingIP: 70.109.53.110 X-SpamH-Filter: d-out-001.smtp25.com-r4MKeV8q027250 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Archives-Salt: 73a50dff-fef9-409f-8f75-3fa62b338cd5 X-Archives-Hash: 71f9f5c4468ed242a542151192aba73f Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 05/22/13 12:36, Samuraiii wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I am trying to get hostname address resolution on my LAN and VPN with > > one serious problem: > > I have two "networks" eg. 10.1.1.0 and 10.2.2.0 which are representing > > local address space for LAN (10.1.1.0/8) and VPN address space (10.2.2.0/8). > > This isn't two networks, it's one network and you've got the VPN space > overlapping the LAN space. To oversimplify a little, Don't Do That. > > Use a separate subnet for the VPN. Then traffic to the VPN will be > routed over the VPN interface as intended, but traffic to the LAN will > be routed over the LAN interface. This is what you want, but right now > the VPN and the LAN are the same network, so "routing to the LAN" is the > same as "routing to the VPN", and your network stack doesn't know what > to do with it. > OK, why are they the same network? Looks like two separate networks to me, but I am very interested if I am wrong. -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici covici@ccs.covici.com