Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Bad conversion of netmask #5

Closed
GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue Mar 19, 2015 · 4 comments
Closed

Bad conversion of netmask #5

GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue Mar 19, 2015 · 4 comments
Labels

Comments

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link

Version 0.4.6

Using pull from server.
Gets netmask in dotted form with last number as netbits, ex 192.168.99.29, ie 
29 netbits, should be 192.168.99.248.

Static ip gets netbits as hostbits (32 - x).
The same goes for custom route.


Original issue reported on code.google.com by [email protected] on 1 May 2012 at 11:21

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

Netmask in dotted form with last number as netbits sound somewhat wrong. Maybe 
your server is using p2p or net30 as topology option. In that case /32 as 
netmask for the local IP won't hurt.

Custom/static routes should work nevertheless. What routes get pushed to 
you/are you using?

Original comment by [email protected] on 2 May 2012 at 9:06

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

My server is running openvpn on suse 12.1, there is no explicit setting 
topology in server.conf. I haven't checked default settings ...

I can get a working client by setting:
static ip = 192.168.99.30/2
which will give "generated config":
ifconfig 192.168.99.30 255.255.255.252

In the same way setting custom route = 192.168.1.0/8
will give "generated config":
route 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0

The above ip and route is pushed from server, but the client gives an error:
"Cannot make sense of 192.168.99.30 and 192.168.99.29 as IP and CIDR netmask, 
assuming P2P for local address (/32)"
I first assumed 29 was netbits, but I now rather think it is the server side 
address of the PtP link.

Original comment by [email protected] on 3 May 2012 at 12:22

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

Good catch with the wrong /xx I screwed that up. And I will make the error 
message a bit clearer.

Original comment by [email protected] on 3 May 2012 at 9:04

  • Changed state: Started

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

This issue was closed by revision 29917975dc06.

Original comment by [email protected] on 3 May 2012 at 8:38

  • Changed state: Fixed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant