Exercise 2: Two "Connected" VPN Users, Two Different Results — Possible Solution
====================================================================

WHAT THIS CHAPTER SAYS COULD CAUSE IT
------------------------------
Per this chapter, "Connected' doesn't mean 'routed the way you
expect'" - two users both showing VPN: Connected "can have genuinely
different effective routing if one has a full-tunnel profile and the
other a split-tunnel one, or if a split-tunnel configuration's own
included ranges don't cover the specific destination in question."

WHY BOTH CAN BE GENUINELY CONNECTED AND STILL DIFFER
------------------------------
Per this chapter, a full-tunnel VPN "routes every packet through the
VPN, internal and general internet traffic alike," while a
split-tunnel VPN "routes only traffic destined for specific internal
ranges through the tunnel, leaving everything else to go directly out
the local internet connection as normal." If one user's profile is
full-tunnel and the other's is split-tunnel (or their split-tunnel
ranges differ), the same destination can be reached through the tunnel
for one user and outside it for the other - producing different
results despite both showing as connected.

WHY "CONNECTED" ALONE DOESN'T TELL YOU WHICH SITUATION APPLIES
------------------------------
The VPN connection status only confirms a tunnel exists - it says
nothing about which traffic is actually routed through it. Per this
chapter, that's exactly why assuming a connection status implies a
specific routing behavior is risky without checking.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
It names the specific chapter concept (full-tunnel vs. split-tunnel,
and differing included ranges) that explains how two connected users
can see different results, rather than assuming one of them must not
actually be connected.