Discussed in https://github.com/pivpn/pivpn/discussions/1516

yes

May 04 '22 08:05 orazioedoardo

it looks like it gets stuck in the while true; loop since the subnet of my vm 10.0.0.0/8 will result in all generated pivpnNET 10.XXX.XXX.0 to be invalid...

Would it not make more sense to change your local subnet ?

Nobody requires 10/8 as a local subnet.

The script could detect this subnet and then explain why it is incompatible with pivpn.

Nov 06 '22 17:11 TinCanTech

Or, PiVPN could allow the use of a non-10.x.x.x-based system? Such as using 192.168 instead? I have a large homelab setup with VMs and CTs within ProxMox boxes, as well as a large number of DHCP clients and site-to-site VPNs such that while a 10/8 subnet is not required, reconfiguring my entire network would be an extremely annoying thing to do.

Nov 19 '22 01:11 davwheat

There is no valid use case for 10/8 as a local subnet.

Nov 19 '22 01:11 TinCanTech

Just because there aren't reasonable use cases, doesn't mean that these networks do not exist, and a single piece of software should not dictate what a valid network setup is or isn't.

People can have their own opinions on what a networking setup should be like -- and yours is painfully obvious -- but this is still just your opinion.

Nov 19 '22 01:11 davwheat

@davwheat If you have a physical local network with 16.77 million connected hosts then you do not require pivpn to configure your VPN.

That is, unless you can demonstrate a valid use case with a local subnet of 10/8.

Let us calculate the required resources:

• Average rack switch: 64 ~ 2048 ports.
• Number of switches required for a 10/8 subnet: 16.77 million divided by (64 ~ 2048) = 8192+++ Electricity bill is too excessive.

And this is only IPv4, what thumb-duckery can we expect with IPv6 ?

People can have their own opinions on what a networking setup should be like

Yeah .. people can have opinions, like which way to slice an onion.

On the other hand, pivpn is doing a good job, for free.. (IE. Not nonsense.)

Nov 19 '22 01:11 TinCanTech

There is no valid use case for 10/8 as a local subnet.

Your Pi would fry, under such pressure.

Nov 19 '22 06:11 TinCanTech

I was able to install be makeing changes to this part of pivpn/auto_install/install.sh

To install using 192.168.xxx.xxx instead of 10.xxx.xxx.xxx

generateRandomSubnet() { local MATCHES

Source: https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/AvoidRoutingConflicts

declare -a SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST

SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST=(10.0.0.0/24) SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST+=(10.0.1.0/24) SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST+=(10.1.1.0/24) SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST+=(10.1.10.0/24) SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST+=(10.2.0.0/24) SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST+=(10.8.0.0/24) SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST+=(10.10.1.0/24) SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST+=(10.90.90.0/24) SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST+=(10.100.1.0/24) SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST+=(10.255.255.0/24)

readarray -t CURRENTLY_USED_SUBNETS <<< "$(ip route show
| grep -oE '[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}/[0-9]{1,2}')" SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST=("${SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST[@]}" "${CURRENTLY_USED_SUBNETS[@]}")

while true; do MATCHES=0 pivpnNET="192.168.$((RANDOM % 256)).0"

for SUB in "${SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST[@]}"; do
  if grepcidr "${SUB}" <<< "${pivpnNET}/24" 2>&1 >/dev/null; then
    ((MATCHES++))
  fi
done

if [[ "${MATCHES}" -eq 0 ]]; then
  break
fi

done

echo "${pivpnNET}" }

May 19 '23 01:05 bradm10000

Hi, I had the same issue with a 10.X.X.X/24 network, after changing the line following line, it all worked nice. pivpnNET="10.$((RANDOM % 256)).$((RANDOM % 256)).0" => pivpnNET="20.$((RANDOM % 256)).$((RANDOM % 256)).0"

and to better format what @bradm10000 wrote:

generateRandomSubnet() {
  local MATCHES
  # Source: https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/AvoidRoutingConflicts
  declare -a SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST

  SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST=(10.0.0.0/24)
  SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST+=(10.0.1.0/24)
  SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST+=(10.1.1.0/24)
  SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST+=(10.1.10.0/24)
  SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST+=(10.2.0.0/24)
  SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST+=(10.8.0.0/24)
  SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST+=(10.10.1.0/24)
  SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST+=(10.90.90.0/24)
  SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST+=(10.100.1.0/24)
  SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST+=(10.255.255.0/24)

  readarray -t CURRENTLY_USED_SUBNETS <<< "$(ip route show \
    | grep -oE '[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\/[0-9]{1,2}')"
  SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST=("${SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST[@]}"
    "${CURRENTLY_USED_SUBNETS[@]}")

  while true; do
    MATCHES=0
    pivpnNET="192.168.$((RANDOM % 256)).0"

    for SUB in "${SUBNET_EXCLUDE_LIST[@]}"; do
      if grepcidr "${SUB}" <<< "${pivpnNET}/24" \
        2>&1 > /dev/null; then
        ((MATCHES++))
      fi
    done

    if [[ "${MATCHES}" -eq 0 ]]; then
      break
    fi
  done

  echo "${pivpnNET}"
}

Jun 19 '23 12:06 MaxiStarling56

I'm having this same exact problem, I cannot fathom why you guys can't just accept that people do actually use these networks, and you SHOULD adapt to it...

Sep 29 '23 04:09 Auxtal

I'm having this same exact problem, I cannot fathom why you guys can't just accept that people do actually use these networks, and you SHOULD adapt to it...

@Auxtal can you remind me please, who are you exactly?

anyway ... I have the test branch ready for your Pull request

Sep 29 '23 07:09 coolapso

Running into this issue here as well, looking forward to a resolution on this bug!

Nov 08 '23 01:11 volk12

Should be fixed in the pull request mentioned above, you can try with curl -L https://test.pivpn.io | TESTING= bash

Nov 23 '23 10:11 orazioedoardo

Pre-archive closing, more information here

Apr 06 '24 09:04 coolapso