Fwd: Re: VPN Example 2

[md at rpzdesign.com]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gus & Tinc-VPN List:

It looks like I need to run 2 instances of tincd on each server.

1 instance of tincd will responsible for running a VPN over the LAN on
eth1.  This means Class C addresses from 10.0.1.10 -> 10.0.1.250

Another instance of tincd will be responsible for running a VPN over
the WAN on eth0. This means Class C addresses from 10.0.2.10 ->
10.0.2.250.

This will result in 2 TUN devices appear in the ifconfig -a list.

For all the servers on the local network, they will be on NET LAN.
For all servers, they will be on NET WAN and they will have HOSTS
files for every server except those servers on the local LAN.

This will allow the routing table to have 2 entries with netmask
255.255.255.0.  LAN on 10.0.1.0. WAN on 10.0.2.0.

Does this all sound about right?

I am sure there is a way to optimize and allow a class B for the WAN
that will not routing table conflict with the class C on the LAN.

Cheers all,

Marco
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUiluXAAoJEPo4S5nQw5H/EnsIAI4G/fj2MMEHe23Oxz6mg16l
vef2WH9kcDSnO0Rwta2apMgk1d6ImBb03FiQy90HAUQvXC8QBh0gYB+R5kaE01ro
H/Ws0yv0hGLkFZc3JM8+r9neH7u62UGfwZ/lnulDAXhrgrroMqJo70etuP62EsMp
e2+tkq9y0KQZUS2rbNx3M81Ad1ly2uszsfON9596Kf6Ethi/D4/1i3UB+ejuvMwV
TX/GGeRr40OzDwAjuRyWx3dNC+y7KpAzTIIRcC77kKxe6G7IoBiq2exdwFkTUWTH
YxiSIYAqN9qqhXt95v3rY8osgngHu2mHaKaSPpimiG330DKQjZKOaVF80fsF274=
=9v3r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----