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

[Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com>]

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