distilled
Senior Member
So if we held a contest for the dumbest, least important question asked on these wonderful forums, this one has to be at least a contender. It is pure curiosity and has zero real world relevance, at least insofar as residential routing. And yet, here it is.
I have multiple VPNs set up between Asus routers (running Merlin), one of which is for anonymizing connections to a couple specific machines, and the others site-to-site. Exceptions have to be made for the machines that are anonymized, so that they are able to see the remote site-to-site VPNs.
For example, Machine A has to be anonymized *except* when it looks at 192.168.150.9, 192.168.150.10, 192.168.150.11 and 192.168.200.200. If WAN routes are not made for those four machines, it tries to access them through the anonymizing VPN, which obviously doesn't work.
So, is it more CPU intensive to create 4 different routes to those individual IP addresses, or to just create a WAN route for 192.168.150.0/24 and 192.168.200.0/24?
In practice, there are about 10 addresses in each of these two subnets, so there are more like 20 specific routes.
As stated, this is just an OCD / retentive thing, and it really doesn't make any difference at all, but does anyone know which is preferable from a performance tuning (or "best practice") point of view, and why?
Hope everyone is having a wonderful Friday!
I have multiple VPNs set up between Asus routers (running Merlin), one of which is for anonymizing connections to a couple specific machines, and the others site-to-site. Exceptions have to be made for the machines that are anonymized, so that they are able to see the remote site-to-site VPNs.
For example, Machine A has to be anonymized *except* when it looks at 192.168.150.9, 192.168.150.10, 192.168.150.11 and 192.168.200.200. If WAN routes are not made for those four machines, it tries to access them through the anonymizing VPN, which obviously doesn't work.
So, is it more CPU intensive to create 4 different routes to those individual IP addresses, or to just create a WAN route for 192.168.150.0/24 and 192.168.200.0/24?
In practice, there are about 10 addresses in each of these two subnets, so there are more like 20 specific routes.
As stated, this is just an OCD / retentive thing, and it really doesn't make any difference at all, but does anyone know which is preferable from a performance tuning (or "best practice") point of view, and why?
Hope everyone is having a wonderful Friday!