|
|
Hi, I was just wondering. I'm trying to setup a VPN using several small nets. Each network has a 10.X.0.0 255.255.0.0 network address. E.g. network A has 10.2.0.1 255.255.0.0 as it's first address, and network B uses 10.4.0.1 255.255.0.0. C would be 10.6.0.1/16 etc etc Now i read that routed tun was faster and more efficient than routed/bridged tap, so i'll stick with the first. This however means that my VPN will get it's own address range to play with. Since I am thining of having an openvpn server on each host, and clients to the other servers, some tricky routing/configuring will be required. Initially I was thinking of using 10.2.1.1 for the VPN server on network A. but what netmask would be wisest to use here? 255.255.255.255? and tell network A via routes that over that tunnel it can reach the 10.4.0.0/16 network? Or designate an entire network range for VPN, to get the VPN ip's out of the network itself, e.g. make all VPN servers take an address out of the 10.254.0.0/16 pool, so that server on network A would get 10.254.2.1, network B would then have 10.254.4.1 etc. This would also require proper routing, but seems to make more sense. Thanks on your thoughts, ______________________ OpenVPN mailing lists https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users |