On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 18:23, Sean Estabrooks wrote: > On 24 Aug 2003 18:06:43 -0400 > Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > default <namehidden> 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 > > > 0 eth0 > > > > > Therein lies the problem. You've setup your routing so that when the > > VPN connection is active, all traffic is routed through the VPN, even > > How does the default route affect all traffic? It will only be used > when a destination IP does not match the subnet of a local interface. > You don't even need a default route for lan access.
Normally it doesn't, Sean. But I bet if he did a capture at the gateway, you'd see it. Without seeing *real* traffic patterns, we're simply guessing. Granted, this is on a Linux system, but I also have my doubts about the data (obfuscation?) that Jay has presented. I wouldn't propose such a thing if I hadn't dealt with it myself on numerous occassions. -- Jason Dixon, RHCE DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
