FWIW, I posted this issue to Microsoft's forum: http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/xpnetwork/thread/82388e04-1791-43a0-a678-de8475bce537
Everyone who like this to be answered can mark that article to up the "X persons needs an answer" thing. <http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/xpnetwork/thread/82388e04-1791-43a0-a678-de8475bce537> Henno 2010/6/26 Gert Doering <g...@greenie.muc.de> > Hi, > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:50:45PM +0300, Henno Täht wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 22:48, Gert Doering <g...@greenie.muc.de> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 09:10:10AM +0200, Jan Just Keijser wrote: > > > > assigns a 169.254 address. If this works for you as well then maybe > the > > > > tap-win32 developers can dive deeper into this and find out why > windows > > > > treats the 'always connected' adapter differently from an > 'application > > > > controlled' adapter . > > > > > > I'd assume that windows services are not "bound" to "dynamic" > interfaces... > > > > By dynamic interface you mean an interface which has "Obtain IP address > > automatically" set? > > No, I was thinking about interfaces that sort of "are not always there". > > But that was a misconception, the TAP interface *is* always there - what's > application controlled is whether it's "connected to an ethernet cable" > (virtual, of course) all the time, or only if openvpn tells it so. > > But in that my idea doesn't really make sense - it's as if windows wouldn't > start windows sharing if the ethernet cable is not plugged in at boot time. > > gert > > -- > USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! > // > www.muc.de/~gert/ > Gert Doering - Munich, Germany > g...@greenie.muc.de > fax: +49-89-35655025 > g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de >
