Re: Confused about network route added by NM 0.7.0 for PPTP VPN

[Rob Beazizo <beazizo gmail com>]

Dan,

Before adding route manually after vpn connect:

0.0.0.0 via 192.168.1.1 dev eth1  proto static 
192.168.1.0/24 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.1.100 
10.255.0.0/16 dev ppp0  proto kernel  scope link  src 10.255.0.0 
default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth1  proto static 

After adding route manually after vpn connect:

0.0.0.0 via 192.168.1.1 dev eth1  proto static 
192.168.1.0/24 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.1.100 
10.255.0.0/16 dev ppp0  scope link 
10.255.0.0/16 dev ppp0  proto kernel  scope link  src 10.255.0.0 
default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth1  proto static 

Obviously, the third line is the difference.  Is there a way to achieve
the same result automatically using NM or do I just have to add the
route manually?



On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 23:11 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-08-09 at 09:09 -0700, Rob Beazizo wrote:
> > I have a PPTP VPN connection defined in NM applet 0.7.0 with a Address
> > added to the IPv4 Settings page as Address=10.255.0.0 Prefix=16
> > Gateway=0.0.0.0.  After the establishing the PPTP connection
> > successfully, I have the following in my route table:
> > 
> > [root localhost ~]# route -n
> > Kernel IP routing table
> > Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref    Use
> > Iface
> > 0.0.0.0         192.168.1.1     255.255.255.255 UGH   0      0        0
> > eth1
> > 192.168.1.0     0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U     0      0        0
> > eth1
> > 10.255.0.0      0.0.0.0         255.255.0.0     U     0      0        0
> > ppp0
> > 0.0.0.0         192.168.1.1     0.0.0.0         UG    0      0        0
> > eth1
> > 
> > At this point, I couldn't establish any connectivity to anything in
> > 10.255.x.x.
> > 
> > On a hunch I ran the following route command manually.  After running it
> > I was able to then connect to 10.255.x.x addresses.
> > 
> > 	route add -net 10.255.0.0 netmask 255.255.0.0 dev ppp0
> > 
> > Oddly, after adding the net route manually, my route table had two of
> > the following entries which appear to be exactly the same, but obviously
> > they aren't:
> > 
> > 10.255.0.0      0.0.0.0         255.255.0.0     U     0      0        0
> > ppp0
> > 10.255.0.0      0.0.0.0         255.255.0.0     U     0      0        0
> > ppp0
> > 
> > My question is, what is NM adding and why is it different than running
> > the route add -net command manually?  I don't know enough to dig deeper
> > into the routes being added to figure out what is different.  Perhaps
> > someone with more knowledge could tell me what to look at.
> 
> Can you run '/sbin/ip route list' before and after you add the route and
> post the difference between the two runs?  /sbin/ip will give a bit more
> information about things like scope.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dan
>