Stay away from the 192.168/23 as they're WAY to common. If you connect from a friend's house using that subnet, you run the high risk of losing your VPN connection. My recommendation is to renumber your home network to something uncommon (as suggest earlier). If you plan on doing LAN gaming and such, setup a bridged VPN. If you aren't doing anything that needs layer 2, specifically, go with a routed setup. For what it's worth, the IPv6 payload patch is 2.2-RC now, if I remember correctly, and has been in the development snapshots for quite some time. If you want real-time assistance, there is an IRC channel, #openvpn on Freenode. Eric On Apr 5, 2011, at 09:39:15, Jima wrote: > On 04/05/2011 09:34 AM, Jima wrote: >> Another option if you only want to access a few hosts in your private >> network: assign them IPs that would be constrained within a smaller >> address block -- I'd suggest a /26 or smaller that isn't at the "top" or >> "bottom" of the /24, thus avoiding including .1 and .254 (generally the >> most common gateway addresses) -- and have your OpenVPN push the route >> for that block to the client. Linux should give the more-specific route >> (the ~/26 over the VPN) priority over the less-specific one (the local >> /24) in the event of a /24 overlap. (Excluding .1/.254 is probably >> necessary to avoid breaking your default route out of the network, FWIW.) > > ...or use the IPv6 payload patch for OpenVPN and IPv6 ULA address space, and push that route over the VPN. While ULA isn't guaranteed to be unique (despite the name, Unique Local Address), it's far less statistically probable to run into a similar address space overlap, especially with the minimal amount of IPv6 deployment out there. > > Jima > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >