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 D8F811381F3 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 20:43:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 18FA2E0879; Wed, 22 May 2013 20:43:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail0200.smtp25.com (mail0200.smtp25.com [174.37.170.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C973DE0850 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 20:43:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ccs.covici.com (s-out-001.smtp25.com [67.228.91.90]) by s-out-001.smtp25.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id r4MKhjrk023140 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 16:43:46 -0400 Received: from ccs.covici.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ccs.covici.com (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4MKhjKg017958 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 16:43:45 -0400 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] VPN vs LAN address hostname resolution In-reply-to: <519D05C9.8000308@gmail.com> References: <519CF41B.5040108@gmail.com> <519D021D.2050006@orlitzky.com> <519D05C9.8000308@gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to Michael Mol message dated "Wed, 22 May 2013 13:52:09 -0400." X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 16:43:45 -0400 Message-ID: <17957.1369255425@ccs.covici.com> From: covici@ccs.covici.com X-SpamH-OriginatingIP: 70.109.53.110 X-SpamH-Filter: s-out-001.smtp25.com-r4MKhjrk023140 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: a867673e-6e70-47cc-b5b8-c5815e028214 X-Archives-Hash: 54782d34395181647164e2d3f09f16a4 Michael Mol wrote: > On 05/22/2013 01:36 PM, 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. > > > > > > To be clear, replacing /8 with /24 would do this: > > 10.1.1.0/8, as a "network", is really just 10.0.0.0/8. This is also true > of 10.2.2.0/8. The bits after the first 8 are irrelevant, since a /8 is > being used. Use /24 instead, in this case. > > It would be good for Samuraiii to read up: > > http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_IPAddressing.htm OK, I see now, never mind my previous post. -- 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