From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-147858-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F441381F3
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 17:36:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E023AE07F2;
	Wed, 22 May 2013 17:36:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail2.viabit.com (mail2.viabit.com [65.246.80.16])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FEDDE07D9
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 17:36:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.1.1.204] (unknown [65.213.236.244])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail2.viabit.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3bG1H16W5Qz1hfG
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 13:36:29 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=orlitzky.com; s=mail2;
	t=1369244189; bh=jvTyVX95sIekcq1USC4anudZL1Ve+cDPtL9jnxnHLVQ=;
	h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
	b=HndJesEHzPAq3c5WeCRyOlwedeo5c1/ZjnKr5QJPZEP6z6b0o2KuJGIyW1FfLoszU
	 QMIz4GA0RY8vkoAZUUk0rEYFtH3JjIAc+cnkp3QS+wS3Tz17UOXRz+pV+BaEm9rqk+
	 1hREX4xihFUqEu5ftYeUUdLiNokaSNuyiKFLd4Ec=
Message-ID: <519D021D.2050006@orlitzky.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 13:36:29 -0400
From: Michael Orlitzky <michael@orlitzky.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130417 Thunderbird/17.0.5
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] VPN vs LAN address hostname resolution
References: <519CF41B.5040108@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <519CF41B.5040108@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 07fabcae-c4b4-44c9-a665-354600d0172d
X-Archives-Hash: dc495ff9a57a585e34c86fb9154b4740

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.