On 24 Aug 2003 18:26:32 -0400 Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi again Jason,
> 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. > Yes, i think it's up to Jay now to add some more information to his description. > I wouldn't propose such a thing if I hadn't dealt with it myself on > numerous occassions. > I'm sure you wouldn't, guess it's just that it is outside of my experience. I'm always happy to learn new things that's why i asked. Will be interesting to see how this problem is resolved. Cheers, Sean -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
