So, maybe this is a matter of compilation?
Or something else to look after, to prevent openconnect from doing this?
Maybe someone can give a hint where to download the openconnect sources
for Ubuntu?
On 01.04.2024 um 18:35 Uhr Markus Robert Kessler wrote:
I am running several machines for connecting to our company intranet,
using openconnect VPN.
Invoked directly or via NetworkManager?
So far, it works. But:
The debian based systems, i.e. Ubuntu 23.10 and Raspbian OS show up
hundreds of routes after connect. And it's clear that they are brought
to my client via server-initiated 'push route ...' command.
Some of these routes are conflicting with machines in my home office
net.
So, I'd like to skip getting such a huge amount of useless routes. I
want to set the routing by my own script, instead.
NetworkManager has an option to ignore routes from the peer. Connection settings --> IPv4/IPv6 settings --> Routes --> Ignore automatically
obtained routes
So, openconnect does have a (commandline) option, which network
manager invokes to get rid of those routing infos?
I didn't find this switch in the man page yet. Do you know its name?
On 01.04.2024 um 19:30 Uhr Markus Robert Kessler wrote:
So, openconnect does have a (commandline) option, which network
manager invokes to get rid of those routing infos?
I dunno.
I didn't find this switch in the man page yet. Do you know its name?
Sadly, no.
I currently have to invoke openconnect directly because they don't
support TOTP properly yet and it is PITA.
I recommend invoking it via NM whenever possible.
On 01.04.2024 um 18:35 Uhr Markus Robert Kessler wrote:
So, I'd like to skip getting such a huge amount of useless routes. I
want to set the routing by my own script, instead.
NetworkManager has an option to ignore routes from the peer.
Connection settings --> IPv4/IPv6 settings --> Routes --> Ignore >automatically obtained routes
In article <uuf01e$2lb63$1@dont-email.me>,
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
On 01.04.2024 um 18:35 Uhr Markus Robert Kessler wrote:
So, I'd like to skip getting such a huge amount of useless routes. I
want to set the routing by my own script, instead.
NetworkManager has an option to ignore routes from the peer.
Connection settings --> IPv4/IPv6 settings --> Routes --> Ignore >>automatically obtained routes
The Cisco ASA at work pushes some routes to my computer when I connect to
it. One of them (for a remote office) uses the same 192.168.1.0/24 subnet
as my home network, so I lose access to my file server, printers, etc. at home when I'm connected to the VPN. I'd been considering moving my home network to a different subnet, but this would be easier...will have to look into it.
I'd still need a route to 172.16.0.0/22. Would this have to be added manually after connecting?
On 2024-04-02, Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
In article <uuf01e$2lb63$1@dont-email.me>,
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
On 01.04.2024 um 18:35 Uhr Markus Robert Kessler wrote:
So, I'd like to skip getting such a huge amount of useless routes. I
want to set the routing by my own script, instead.
NetworkManager has an option to ignore routes from the peer. Connection >>>settings --> IPv4/IPv6 settings --> Routes --> Ignore automatically >>>obtained routes
The Cisco ASA at work pushes some routes to my computer when I connect
to it. One of them (for a remote office) uses the same 192.168.1.0/24
subnet as my home network, so I lose access to my file server,
printers, etc. at home when I'm connected to the VPN. I'd been
considering moving my home network to a different subnet, but this
would be easier...will have to look into it.
?? 192.168.x.x is non-routable. Ie, unless you are directly connected to
the network you cannot access it. Is your home on the same physical net
as that remote office? Otherwise I do not see how tht could do anything
to your attachment to the home network.
I'd still need a route to 172.16.0.0/22. Would this have to be added
manually after connecting?
?? 192.168.x.x is non-routable. Ie, unless you are directly connected to
the network you cannot access it. Is your home on the same physical net
as that remote office? Otherwise I do not see how tht could do anything
to your attachment to the home network.
In article <uuf01e$2lb63$1@dont-email.me>,
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
On 01.04.2024 um 18:35 Uhr Markus Robert Kessler wrote:
So, I'd like to skip getting such a huge amount of useless routes. I
want to set the routing by my own script, instead.
NetworkManager has an option to ignore routes from the peer.
Connection settings --> IPv4/IPv6 settings --> Routes --> Ignore
automatically obtained routes
The Cisco ASA at work pushes some routes to my computer when I connect to
it. One of them (for a remote office) uses the same 192.168.1.0/24 subnet
as my home network, so I lose access to my file server, printers, etc. at home when I'm connected to the VPN. I'd been considering moving my home network to a different subnet, but this would be easier...will have to look into it.
I'd still need a route to 172.16.0.0/22. Would this have to be added manually after connecting?
?? 192.168.x.x is non-routable.
The Cisco ASA at work pushes some routes to my computer when I
connect to it.
One of them (for a remote office) uses the same
192.168.1.0/24 subnet as my home network, so I lose access to my file
server, printers, etc. at home when I'm connected to the VPN. I'd
been considering moving my home network to a different subnet, but
this would be easier...will have to look into it.
The commercial VPNs like Cisco want to disable direct Internet access
of the client for the duration of the tunnel, to prevent sneak paths
to/from the public net and the internal tunneled network.
On 02.04.2024 um 22:16 Uhr William Unruh wrote:
?? 192.168.x.x is non-routable.
It is routable, but won't be routed on the internet.
You can of course route it through a tunnel like here.
But which? He says he has his home network on 192.168. and there is a
work network on 192.168. but it is a different network (ne home, one
work) and the work one takes precednce for him. Only one of them can
be active to his machine. which has to be setup in the routng tables.
On 4/3/24 22:09, William Unruh wrote:
But which? He says he has his home network on 192.168. and there is a
work network on 192.168. but it is a different network (ne home, one
work) and the work one takes precednce for him. Only one of them can be
active to his machine. which has to be setup in the routng tables.
Traditional routing, read: non-policy-based-routing, dictates that the
best route wins. Directly attached routes always trump remote routes.
So for a remote route to be trumping a directly attached route, policy-based-routing must be in use or something else to override very
low level routing / networking.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 22:29:13 -0500, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 4/3/24 22:09, William Unruh wrote:
But which? He says he has his home network on 192.168. and there is a
work network on 192.168. but it is a different network (ne home, one
work) and the work one takes precednce for him. Only one of them can be
active to his machine. which has to be setup in the routng tables.
Traditional routing, read: non-policy-based-routing, dictates that the
best route wins. Directly attached routes always trump remote routes.
So for a remote route to be trumping a directly attached route,
policy-based-routing must be in use or something else to override very
low level routing / networking.
Verify the netmask(s) u use. If they are all /24 then a change in local nwtwirk would be easiset change.
On 02.04.2024 um 22:16 Uhr William Unruh wrote:
?? 192.168.x.x is non-routable.
It is routable, but won't be routed on the internet.
You can of course route it through a tunnel like here.
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> writes:
On 02.04.2024 um 22:16 Uhr William Unruh wrote:
?? 192.168.x.x is non-routable.
It is routable, but won't be routed on the internet.
You can of course route it through a tunnel like here.
I always say that the RFC 1918 addresses are "not normally publicly
routed." :-)
As you say, they definitely _are_ routable, or a whole lot of home and corporate networks would not be functional.
I saw a video not too long ago that pointed out that the use of these addresses and NAT was made widespread by the Cisco PIX. It was a pretty interesting look back at something new that now seems commonplace and ordinary.
Just don't forget to change the shorewall rules.
On 2024-04-02, Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
In article <uuf01e$2lb63$1@dont-email.me>,
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
On 01.04.2024 um 18:35 Uhr Markus Robert Kessler wrote:
So, I'd like to skip getting such a huge amount of useless routes. I
want to set the routing by my own script, instead.
NetworkManager has an option to ignore routes from the peer.
Connection settings --> IPv4/IPv6 settings --> Routes --> Ignore >>>automatically obtained routes
The Cisco ASA at work pushes some routes to my computer when I connect to
it. One of them (for a remote office) uses the same 192.168.1.0/24 subnet >> as my home network, so I lose access to my file server, printers, etc. at
home when I'm connected to the VPN. I'd been considering moving my home
network to a different subnet, but this would be easier...will have to look >> into it.
?? 192.168.x.x is non-routable.
On 02/04/2024 23:16, William Unruh wrote:
?? 192.168.x.x is non-routable. Ie, unless you are directly connected to
the network you cannot access it. Is your home on the same physical net
as that remote office? Otherwise I do not see how tht could do anything
to your attachment to the home network.
192.168.x.x is routable.
It just isn't something that the Internet routes, by convention.
It can be routed via a VPN.
It is a good argument for changing his home IP network to something else.
That's also something I've considered. My home router's a Raspberry Pi CM4 on a carrier board that adds a second Ethernet jack, running OpenWRT.
| Sysop: | Coz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Anoka, MN |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 69:46:58 |
| Calls: | 100 |
| Files: | 4,665 |
| Messages: | 217,276 |