|
|
fed wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:26:40 +0100, Martijn Lievaart <m@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Aaaah, see this?
iptables -A FORWARD -i tun+ -j ACCEPT
This allows connections from road warrior to lan, you need an additional
rule for reverse connections:
iptables -A FORWARD -o tun+ -j ACCEPT
Ok thanks, adding this rule i can ping from the a lan's client the
road warrior but it is impossible from the road warrior to ping the
lan's client,
i mean
from 192.168.1.2 ping 10.254.100.2 works
but from the road warrior (10.254.100.2) ping 192.168.1.2 don't work.
Why ?
I don't know. However, the routing is correct. A ping from A to B means
replies from B to A. If that works, packets can go both ways and that
implies the routing is correct. Again (4th time!) Fire up (t)ethereal to
see what goes on on the wire.
I tried to access to the windows share on the road warrior and this
works but it was very slow and i have a lot of problem to, for
example, copy files on the directory in share.
How fast is the connection? You could try to lower the MTU and/or use
mss-fix. Oh,, did I mention to use (t)ethereal to see what really goes
on at the wire level?
if this can help i add the route table of the road warrior :
[ Snip ]
Looks good.
I think that there is still some problems on the route or in the
tunnel configuration.
Tunnel config maybe. Maybe someone else can take a look at that. Routing
seems OK.
HTH,
M4
____________________________________________
Openvpn-users mailing list
Openvpn-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users
|