| 1 |
On 05/22/13 15:35, Samuraiii wrote: |
| 2 |
> The only result I got was a script which every 5 minutes checked all |
| 3 |
> possible addresses of given machine (my "network" is not big at all - |
| 4 |
> only eight machines and one network printer). So checking around 20 |
| 5 |
> addreses is not big deal - but this approach feels clumsy and not |
| 6 |
> scalable to bigger networks (as have other users from list to deal with). |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Script was just checking (by sftp with public ssh keys for unprivileged |
| 9 |
> account) if LAN (eth or wifi) address is up and if not it just assigned |
| 10 |
> address to hostname from vpn range (it did not accounted if machine is |
| 11 |
> up or down). And the just write new /etc/hosts. |
| 12 |
> Central dns is possible only in one part of network - only one machine |
| 13 |
> runs 24/7. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Can't this be changed? If you're running a script to update 20 hosts |
| 16 |
files regularly, you're reinventing what DNS already does. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Routers on both sides are just simple boxes which support only built-in |
| 21 |
> dhcp. |
| 22 |
> Central DNS and/or routed VPN does not solve problem of compute not in |
| 23 |
> any of "known" networks. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Both would solve the problem. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If the routers are the VPN gateways as well, you could decide e.g. that |
| 28 |
a certain chunk of the VPN space belongs to location 1, and then have |
| 29 |
the router at location 1 do the appropriate thing (all packets travel |
| 30 |
through it, after all). This can be done directly with some VPN |
| 31 |
software, or you can translate the addresses on the fly with iptables. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
With a DNS server at each physical location, you just have the DNS |
| 34 |
server at location 1 return the local (location 1) address instead of |
| 35 |
the VPN address for any hostnames physically located at location 1. |
Archives