Use OpenVPN split tunneling when users need speed. Use a full tunnel when you need strict control. If you want cleaner access with less VPN drama, compare both with ZTNA, or Zero Trust Network Access. It often fits remote work better than the old “connect to the whole office network” model.
TLDR: OpenVPN split tunneling sends only work traffic through the VPN. Full tunnel sends all traffic through it, even YouTube, news sites, and lunch menus. For example, a 200-person team may cut VPN bandwidth by 40% to 70% with split tunneling if most internet traffic goes direct. ZTNA goes further by giving users access to specific apps, not the whole network.
What is OpenVPN split tunneling?
OpenVPN split tunneling means your VPN connection is picky. It only sends certain traffic through the VPN tunnel. The rest goes straight to the internet.
Think of it like a security guard with a guest list.
- Work app? Go through the VPN.
- Company file server? Go through the VPN.
- Cat video? Go directly to the internet.
- Spotify? Please stop bothering the VPN.
This can make things faster. It can also reduce load on VPN servers. That matters when everyone works from home and the VPN box starts making sad little beeping sounds.
What is a full tunnel?
A full tunnel sends all user traffic through the OpenVPN connection. Every website. Every app. Every update. Every random tab someone forgot to close three days ago.
This gives IT more control. Traffic can pass through company firewalls, DNS filters, logging tools, and security systems. It is tidy from a management view.
But it can feel heavy. A user in Berlin may connect to a VPN server in New York just to visit a local news site. That is silly. It adds delay. It can turn a normal web page into a tiny loading wheel of doom.
Split tunnel vs full tunnel: the simple version
| Feature | Split tunnel | Full tunnel |
|---|---|---|
| Speed | Usually faster | Can be slower |
| Bandwidth use | Lower | Higher |
| Security control | Less central control | More central control |
| User experience | Often smoother | Can feel clunky |
| Best for | Remote staff using a few private apps | High control environments |
When split tunneling makes sense
Split tunneling is great when users need access to a few internal tools. Maybe they need Git, Jira, an intranet, or a private database. They do not need the whole internet dragged through the office firewall.
It works well for:
- Remote developers using private code repositories.
- Sales teams using a CRM and normal web apps.
- Small offices with limited VPN server capacity.
- Teams using SaaS tools like Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace.
The catch is that split tunneling can create blind spots. If a user visits a risky website outside the VPN, your central security tools may not see it. That does not mean split tunneling is bad. It means you need other controls.
Use endpoint protection. Use DNS filtering. Use device checks. Please do not just cross your fingers and call it a policy.
When full tunnel makes sense
Full tunnel is useful when you need tight traffic control. Some teams must log internet access. Some must filter every request. Some deal with sensitive systems and strict audits.
Pick full tunnel for:
- Finance teams with strict rules.
- Legal firms handling private client files.
- Healthcare groups with sensitive data.
- Call centers using locked-down systems.
- Users on risky public Wi Fi.
Full tunnel can be safer in messy environments. But it has a cost. More traffic hits the VPN. More traffic means more server load. More load means more complaints. It drives me crazy when a simple video call stutters because a VPN is hauling traffic it never needed to touch.
The security trade-off
Split tunneling is not “unsafe” by default. Full tunnel is not “safe” by magic. Both need good setup.
With split tunneling, your main question is simple:
What traffic must be protected by the VPN?
With full tunnel, the question changes:
Can our VPN handle everything without annoying users?
If the answer is no, people will find workarounds. They will disconnect the VPN. They will use personal devices. They will send files in weird ways. That is where security gets ugly.
Image not found in postmetaHow OpenVPN split tunneling works
OpenVPN uses routes. Routes tell a computer where to send traffic. With split tunneling, only selected IP ranges go through the VPN adapter.
For example:
- 10.0.0.0/8 goes through the VPN.
- 192.168.50.0/24 goes through the VPN.
- Everything else uses the normal internet connection.
In a full tunnel setup, OpenVPN often pushes a default route. That means most or all traffic uses the VPN. It is the “everyone into the bus” option.
Split tunneling needs care. Wrong routes can break apps. DNS can get weird too. A user may reach an internal app by IP, but not by name. Then everyone blames the VPN. Fair? Maybe. Fun? No.
What about DNS?
DNS is the phone book of the internet. It turns names into IP addresses. With split tunneling, DNS can be tricky.
You may want company domains to use internal DNS. Public domains should use normal DNS. This is called split DNS.
Example:
- intranet.company.local uses company DNS.
- example.com uses public DNS.
If split DNS is wrong, users get strange errors. The app is online. The VPN is connected. But nothing works. Expect to waste time on tickets that say, “VPN broken,” when the real issue is name resolution.
ZTNA alternatives: the new kid with cleaner shoes
ZTNA stands for Zero Trust Network Access. The idea is simple. Do not put users on the network. Give them access to the exact app they need.
That is a big change from classic VPN thinking. OpenVPN often connects a user to a network segment. ZTNA connects a user to an app after checking identity, device health, location, and policy.
ZTNA usually asks:
- Who is this user?
- Is the device trusted?
- Is multi-factor login passed?
- Which app is allowed?
- Should access end after a set time?
This reduces “network sprawl.” Users do not see everything. They see what they are allowed to use. That is neat. Also slightly boring. Security likes boring.
OpenVPN vs ZTNA
OpenVPN is still useful. It is proven. It works with many systems. It can be cheap to run. Admins understand it.
ZTNA is better when apps are spread across cloud services, data centers, and private environments. It can also reduce the need for broad network access.
Here is the simple split:
- Use OpenVPN split tunnel for quick remote access with better speed.
- Use OpenVPN full tunnel for strict traffic control.
- Use ZTNA when app-level access and identity checks matter most.
A practical example
Say a company has 150 remote workers. Each person uses a private HR app, a file share, Slack, Zoom, and SaaS email.
With a full tunnel, all that traffic may cross the VPN. Video calls alone can eat huge bandwidth. If each user averages only 2 Mbps during busy hours, that is 300 Mbps of load.
With split tunneling, only HR and file share traffic use the VPN. Zoom and email go direct. VPN load may drop to 80 Mbps or less. Users feel the difference. IT hears fewer complaints. A rare win.
With ZTNA, those users may not need VPN access at all. They open a portal or client. They pass identity checks. Then they get the HR app and file share only.
Which one should you choose?
Pick based on risk, users, and apps.
- Choose split tunnel if speed and bandwidth matter.
- Choose full tunnel if all traffic must be inspected.
- Choose ZTNA if you want app access without broad network access.
For many teams, the best answer is mixed. Use ZTNA for key apps. Keep OpenVPN for legacy systems. Use split tunneling where it is safe. Use full tunnel only where needed.
The goal is not to worship one tool. The goal is safer access that does not make people sigh every morning. If your VPN adds ten seconds to every task, users will hate it. If your access model is too loose, security will hate it. Aim for the quiet middle, where work gets done and nothing catches fire.