Shouldn't the netmask for the second line be 0.0.0.0? If it's 128.0.0.0, then a host like 4.4.4.4 goes through the VPN, but a host like 206.107.23.5 won't match the netmask, and would go out the normal default route and not be encrypted wouldn't it?
Or alternately, adding 2 routes, 0.0.0.0/128.0.0.0 and 128.0.0.0/128.0.0.0 would work if for some reason viscosity doesn't want to lose the original default route. As a more specific route, it would override the 0.0.0.0 netmask on the first line, so you'd get all traffic out the VPN.
Question
FunkyChicken 0
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.