search

Amirale47 / ics-openvpn

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/ics-openvpn
0 stars 0 forks source link

Bad conversion of netmask #5

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Version 0.4.6

Using pull from server.
Gets netmask in dotted form with last number as netbits, ex 192.168.99.29, ie 
29 netbits, should be 192.168.99.248.

Static ip gets netbits as hostbits (32 - x).
The same goes for custom route.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mic.wikl...@gmail.com on 1 May 2012 at 11:21

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Netmask in dotted form with last number as netbits sound somewhat wrong. Maybe 
your server is using p2p or net30 as topology option. In that case /32 as 
netmask for the local IP won't hurt.

Custom/static routes should work nevertheless. What routes get pushed to 
you/are you using?

Original comment by arne@rfc2549.org on 2 May 2012 at 9:06

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
My server is running openvpn on suse 12.1, there is no explicit setting 
topology in server.conf. I haven't checked default settings ...

I can get a working client by setting:
static ip = 192.168.99.30/2
which will give "generated config":
ifconfig 192.168.99.30 255.255.255.252

In the same way setting custom route = 192.168.1.0/8
will give "generated config":
route 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0

The above ip and route is pushed from server, but the client gives an error:
"Cannot make sense of 192.168.99.30 and 192.168.99.29 as IP and CIDR netmask, 
assuming P2P for local address (/32)"
I first assumed 29 was netbits, but I now rather think it is the server side 
address of the PtP link.

Original comment by mic.wikl...@gmail.com on 3 May 2012 at 12:22

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Good catch with the wrong /xx I screwed that up. And I will make the error 
message a bit clearer.

Original comment by arne@rfc2549.org on 3 May 2012 at 9:04

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
This issue was closed by revision 29917975dc06.

Original comment by arne@rfc2549.org on 3 May 2012 at 8:38