Hi Christian,
First of all I've made a mistake. I meant 192.168.1.0/24, not
192.168.1.0/8, but that doesn't change anything relevant.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Christian Grunfeld
<christian.grunfeld@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
the network should be the same on both ends but tunnel interfaces
should be diferent.
I'm not sure what you mean. The tunnel interfaces obviously must be
different logically, because a connection has two endpoints and two
distinct interfaces must represent them, even if they can be named the
same, like tun1 and tun1.
I have two networks and both of them have the network address of
192.168.1.0/24 and 192.168.1.0/24. This is what I meant. I know that
they'll be merged once the VPN is set up.
My experience is that SSH VPN doesn't work in this situation, see my
previous mail. This is pretty unpleasant since most of the LANs I've
encountered are either 192.168.0.0/24 or 192.168.1.0/24 and changing
their network addresses is an administrative pain. Correct me if I'm
wrong, though.
I think I'll give OpenVPN a try.
2008/7/7 LÃszlà Monda <laci@monda.hu>:
Hi List,
I'm trying to build an SSH VPN based on the
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SSH_VPN Ubuntu howto, but can't get
it done.
After setting up the VPN and trying to connect to the remote host
which is now on my virtual network I realize that I actually connect
to localhost.
This may be because the remote network and the local network are both
192.168.1.0/8. Do the network adresses of the networks in question
need to differ?
Thanks in advance!
--
Laci <http://monda.hu>
--
Laci <http://monda.hu>
