Fwd: Re: VPN Example 2

[md at rpzdesign.com]

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

Oops, I got it to work only after putting the WAN on port 656 so it
did not interfere with port 655 for the LAN.

I am going to depend heavily on this VPN daemon to do its work
every day.



On 12/11/2014 10:05 PM, md at rpzdesign.com wrote:
> 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 _______________________________________________ tinc-devel
> mailing list tinc-devel at tinc-vpn.org 
> http://www.tinc-vpn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinc-devel
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUipdkAAoJEPo4S5nQw5H/cCAH/jV/FNgDl5a5EW2smLHNgP7d
Fbuv2/156BOCGUE1A8Bf4mDgI9ssekJAWaJB3YT85ILUatfu0aR+e0Qcf6e1mHCS
PsRI1Hrgnbidy3XsGm0WMswWqV0AJZg5G45jJKFFP5zMWTnCC18SvNv73HCfchCI
+5VlS/UUGwHi8EyvElXCHY6or6JYVPqmU0ZFnNqzdEUTMcffvL4B/ffSgo4utVzf
drUfm44kzV0WNjucZ7yuiKTVcnewIEQrcGwJ9plJ1WMv0G7UqP0RpmxjYVwT7qlR
c64F7jnTC5wn4qmRRY3+HgMPl5fvZoToG+R031lt/r6oWRWRy+O9flBeqHEXV+s=
=YLY8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----