Project

General

Profile

Actions

Bug #7907

closed

Cannot edit IPv4 and IPv6 Local Networks after tunnel creation

Added by John Silva over 6 years ago. Updated over 6 years ago.

Status:
Not a Bug
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
OpenVPN
Target version:
-
Start date:
10/02/2017
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Plus Target Version:
Release Notes:
Affected Version:
2.4
Affected Architecture:
All

Description

IPv4 and IPv6 Local Networks may be specified when tunnel is created but is not exposed when editing existing tunnel configurations.

This can lead to the situation where OpenVPN will silently inject old routes into the tunnels producing unexpected behavior when local network topology changes.

For example, in my configuration tunnels are still pushed an old 172.30/16 local route despite having no such routes elsewhere in my configuration.

The only workaround currently is to manually delete and re-create the tunnel configuration with the desired local networks, or to not specify local networks and use the custom configuration box.

Actions #1

Updated by Jim Pingle over 6 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Not a Bug
  • Target version deleted (2.4.1)

I can't reproduce anything like that here. The fields show up when editing existing tunnels that can push. Perhaps the mode of the tunnel is set to something that hides local network fields? Please post on the forum to discuss the issue and identify the actual problem.

Actions #2

Updated by John Silva over 6 years ago

I figured out what the issue is. When "redirect gateway" option is checked the fields for local networks are hidden, but if there are values in those fields they are still included in the configuration.

Least confusion would imply that either the fields are not hidden (given the current behavior) or the fields not be included in the configuration when redirect gateway is checked.

My preference would be to unhide the fields all the time as I find pushing local routes useful when the client is on networks that happen to conflict or overlap with local networks.

Suggest reclassifying this as a feature request.

Actions #3

Updated by Jim Pingle over 6 years ago

You can open a new bug report for that with an appropriate title/description, rather than re-using this one which was incorrect.

It should probably ignore those fields in the backend in the "redirect gateway" scenario.

Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF