PIA setup for multiple client instances and multiple devices

[thedvrguy]

Hi.... newbie here. Thank you to Merlin and the members here for an outstanding build.
I have an RT-AC68U with 378.56.2 Asuswrt-Merlin. I have a home network, in Canada, with about 15 devices (from time to time). I need to defeat geo-blocks from Netflix, NHL and Hulu.
My OpenVPN client is properly installed. I set up Client Instance 1 as PIA in NYC. It is functioning properly with a Status - connected.
I also set up Client Instance 2 as PIA in France. It is installed in the same manner as Instance 1. However, if I put it on (or select it at startup), I get a message of "conflict". For now, I have stopped Instance 2. How can I ensure that the 2 instances co-exist without issue?
Also, I am still unclear (even after exhaustive reading here) of how Policy rules are applied. Here is the example:
On Android Box A, I want to use PIA-France tunnel only on Netflix. All other traffic from this box should go through PIA-NYC tunnel. I'm lost on how to set this in the Policy UI.
Thanks for any help which you can give to me.

 

[cosmoxl]

I haven't used multiple openvpn clients but it should work. just make sure you're specifying different LAN devices for each client. I believe the conflict arises when you're telling both client policies to route the same LAN device.

I do not know if overlapping devices will work if the destination IP is specified for one client and unspecified for the other client.

 

[sfx2000]

I need to defeat geo-blocks from Netflix, NHL and Hulu.

You actually mean - You want to defeat...

FWW - those loopholes are going to close sooner than later...

 

[Martineau]

Hi.... newbie here. Thank you to Merlin and the members here for an outstanding build.
I have an RT-AC68U with 378.56.2 Asuswrt-Merlin. I have a home network, in Canada, with about 15 devices (from time to time). I need to defeat geo-blocks from Netflix, NHL and Hulu.
My OpenVPN client is properly installed. I set up Client Instance 1 as PIA in NYC. It is functioning properly with a Status - connected.
I also set up Client Instance 2 as PIA in France. It is installed in the same manner as Instance 1. However, if I put it on (or select it at startup), I get a message of "conflict". For now, I have stopped Instance 2. How can I ensure that the 2 instances co-exist without issue?
Also, I am still unclear (even after exhaustive reading here) of how Policy rules are applied. Here is the example:
On Android Box A, I want to use PIA-France tunnel only on Netflix. All other traffic from this box should go through PIA-NYC tunnel. I'm lost on how to set this in the Policy UI.
Thanks for any help which you can give to me.

http://www.snbforums.com/threads/error-routing-conflict.30164/


Enable 'Policy rules', but you will need to reverse the assignment of the VPN clients.....

VPN Client 1 PIA France

Android A      192.168.1.nnn  xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx    VPN
etc.
Android A      192.168.1.nnn  xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/nn VPN

VPN Client 2 PIA NYC

Android A      192.168.1.nnn   0.0.0.0            VPN

The problem will be identifying ALL of the Netflix xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx I/P addresses and subnets, since you can't specify a name such as Netflix.com

...maybe these are used by Netflix.com

173.230.240.197
204.12.200.14
104.250.100.14
etc.

 

[thedvrguy]

Thank you, cosmoxl. I did take care with device assignments. I just can't seem to get my head around how to use the 2nd Client Instance as an option for certain devices. I am a beginner. Perhaps I should stick to simply using one instance and be happy with that.

Thank you, Martineau. I did actually come across your post on error/conflict and the potential resolution. I am just not ready for commands and scripts, yet. I hope to solve this issue within the GUI. If not, I will remove France as a Client Instance and use the PIA app to connect that device alone as necessary.

I must say that, for the most part, this project has been made very easy for me. RMerlin has coded and documented very well. I have learned quite a bit about routing and the Asus router. Once again, thanks to the community!

You actually mean - You want to defeat...

FWW - those loopholes are going to close sooner than later...

I didn't bargain on an ESL lesson with my first post. English is not my first language and I do have vocabulary/grammatical/expression issues. I'll try harder on my next post.
FWW - Another hole will appear in the dike.

 

[sfx2000]

I didn't bargain on an ESL lesson with my first post. English is not my first language and I do have vocabulary/grammatical/expression issues. I'll try harder on my next post.
FWW - Another hole will appear in the dike.

Didn't mean it quite like how you interpreted it - apologies...

But seriously - between content providers (like NFLIX/HULU/et cetera), they're starting to take the VPN unlock issue very seriously due to license issues with their providers...

I understand what/why you're trying to fill a "want" - but at the same time... VPN isn't going to be a long term answer, because everyone that's playing in that sandbox knows what's going on - the fact that folks have been getting away with it has much to do with upper management not caring - now days, they do...

 

[thedvrguy]

Didn't mean it quite like how you interpreted it - apologies...

But seriously - between content providers (like NFLIX/HULU/et cetera), they're starting to take the VPN unlock issue very seriously due to license issues with their providers...

I understand what/why you're trying to fill a "want" - but at the same time... VPN isn't going to be a long term answer, because everyone that's playing in that sandbox knows what's going on - the fact that folks have been getting away with it has much to do with upper management not caring - now days, they do...

Not a problem. My attempt at a witty comeback.
Issues surrounding the future of VPNs are far beyond me. For now, I'll just use whatever means to meet my "need".