Debbie:
Could I please ask you to not be so irritatingly confrontational out of the gate? I have done nothing to deserve your animosity.
debbie10t wroteFrom your OP Subj:
Correlating disparate remote nets to vpn nets - 192 to 10?
ANSWER:
Server config:
topology subnet
server 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0
Did you by chance miss the word 'disparate' in the subject? Or that I was not looking for contiguous vpn subnets? Are you sure this is a correct answer to the question posed? I have read, again, the section, and still can not align the question given against your answer. If I have still missed something or misunderstood you, I apologize, and beg your indulgence.
debbie10t wroteSome things to consider:
[*]OpenVPN is Free Open-Source Software - Functionality is provided as is, no warranty.
Please help me understand what I have said that would cause you to bring out this whipping stick at this time.
Although not new to networking, or forums, I am absolutely new to OpenVPN, and this forum. As should be quite obvious - since I felt the need to ask a question and ask for help.
debbie10t wrote[*]There is extensive documentation to help you use OpenVPN.
Which, quite obviously from the nature of my question, I have consulted, deeply, and still 'not quite gotten it.' So asked the question in my original post. You seem to be blaming me for having the temerity to ask a question, in a forum where questions are meant to be asked.
debbie10t wrote[*]If you have a feature request there is a Forum called "Wishlist" .. add a clear and concise post there.
Since from what I read it seemed that what I was looking to do is possible, and, as stated, new to OpenVPN, I would have no way to know that it would be a feature request. As far as I could tell it is normal functionality, and my expectation that I was doing something wrong, so sought help - in a place where help appeared to be offered.
In trying to explain what I think I was trying or wanted to do, such as variable substitution [which seems to me I read as being possible, although not deeply enough in that area to know it was possible or (im)possible in all areas], the question was really 'Is this possible?' A simple answer of 'no' would have sufficed, if that is the case. Or, you're talking about 'such and so' take a specific peek at option '--suchandso' or 'this section'. Rather than going off at me in this way without provocation.
debbie10t wrote(Avoid the use of terms like "burp", make your requirements/intentions/solutions absolutely clear)
Oh, they are. They are absolutely clear, in the context in which they are used, unless you are deliberately trying to be abusive. It's a pretty regular and well understood 'technical' term in my particular technical ecosystem. I gather from your comments, not yours. Which diminishes the validity not a whit.
debbie10t wrote[*]If you are skilled at programming you can submit code for review.
[*]You can review the source code and see for yourself how it works.
[*]If you believe you have found a bug you can submit a bug report.
Really? You're pulling this out, now? Wow. You mean the 'Open' part of 'OpenVPN' means it works just like every other piece of FOSS out there, with a similar ecosystem? It was informative, useful, or productive, to add that in at this time? Not merely assumed, since it's 'OpenVPN'?
Good to know. Thank you very much.
debbie10t wroteFinally, before you try squeezing a square peg into a round hole,
But how can I know that I am, it appearing that what I'm trying to do being quite normal, not being able to make it work, and reasonably assuming I am doing something wrong.
At this point, I have to assume, reasonably, there is no bug or feature request here - there can only be user error. Working on that reasonable basis, and not accomplishing expected results, I asked a question. Only through asking and answering is it possible to determine that no user error exists, to discern that a bug or feature has been found. Upon which to base a report or a request. By definition, one must pose a question, and be usefully answered, before the need for any such can possibly become apparent, to anyone. Yet you seem to be beating me up for following that very, logical, process.
debbie10t wrote try learning how OpenVPN Works.
Which is what I have been trying to do, and reading, and, being unsuccessful, asked for help with a question. Your comment seems to say to try to learn about OpenVPN you should have tried to learn about OpenVPN - circular. And pointless. Your message seems to imply that everyone in all walks of life should be able to just read the documentation and intuitively and inherently understand everything. No questions or clarifications or 'help me understand' would ever be necessary. If that were true, this forum wouldn't exist.
debbie10t wroteYour previous comments prove you do not have sufficient understanding of OpenVPN yet, read the documentation.
No, really? If I understood it, despite it being quite obvious I've done so and still missed things, I wouldn't have asked the question. Or if I completely got everything out of the documentation to make me entirely successful, I wouldn't have asked the question.
Telling me to go back and read the documentation again, is circular. Particularly when you again don't point out any particular section I'm misunderstanding / not quite getting. Particularly when '--server' and 'disparate' are, apparently, now, oxymorons. Which could not have been apparent without asking the question, which you appear to be blaming me for asking, when it seemed to me from what I read to be possible. Seemed. To me. Saying "you've misread" may well be quite reasonable - but certainly not what you gave.
debbie10t wrotebs27975-1 wroteExcept, as I read it, in the server conf I can only specify one IP address, via server or ifconfig line. As opposed to one server ip per client. Heck, it doesn't seem like I can put per client server information in the server conf - only in the client-dir conf, where I can push the ifconfig to the client, but not set it for the server. (Confirm?)
This is clearly documented ..
Well, obviously not, or buried, or (more probably) said over such a wide area of options as to be indiscernible, or I wouldn't have asked.
Could you do me a favour, please ... if you're just going to attack, be sanctimonious, or just be confrontational to the person who's asking for help and doing their best to understand, just pass on replying. Just walk away. It would likely save more than a few people a lot of unnecessary and pointless aggravation. It isn't going to do them any good, and apparently not doing you any good, either.
Consider, when you were just starting on learning a 'thing', doing the best you can, how would you have reacted to your messages? Would you have appreciated them? Found them useful? Productive? Perhaps something to consider before hitting 'Submit.'
In this case, a simple answer of "OpenVPN can't do what you're trying to do. Sorry." would have done it.
Or, "Sorry, your VPN nets must be continuous. VPN can't do disparate nets."
Or, more correctly, and usefully, particularly if I had understood it earlier:
"The only way you can do what you're trying to do is to have multiple instances of OpenVPN running, one per contiguous section. In doing so you will lose {this, if any?} functionality because of the multiple instances, but if things still work for your use case, that's how to get where you're trying to go."
All of which would have been more useful, and a lot quicker, than what you have put me through here. So, please, if all you're going to do is say RTFM, when the guy has obviously been trying to do so, then attack and abuse as he tries to follow what you've said (Which mostly amounts to 'How dare you ask a question!' 'Read the docs!' 'How could you not understand the docs!') - please just walk away and don't answer. Such is not worth the increase in blood pressure, for anyone.
