-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 26/02/11 12:25, Gert Doering wrote: | Hi, | | On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 11:19:19AM +0000, Olivier Van Acker wrote: |>> The code parts in question inside OpenVPN (socket.c) are somewhat |>> complicated due to lots of existing options and lots of existing |>> operating systems being supported, so this will not be a trivial |>> task. |> |> Would it be a good idea to limit the scope of this project by concentrating |> on one OS first? I was thinking FreeBSD first since that contains the |> reference implementation of SCTP. | | Well, you'd certainly start with one OS, but in the long run, you'd want | the mainstream OSes (Linux and Windows) as well...
I second this. SCTP is really interesting for OpenVPN in my perspective, but we should rather quickly after having "something which works" support other OSes as well. When we reach that point, merging SCTP support into 'allmerged' for broader testing gets interesting. If Linux gets support quickly, I'm able to test this out pretty soonish in a limited prod environment. Some practical details. General info about the development process can be found here: <https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/DeveloperDocumentation>, including git repositories. For the git branch to look at, JJO's IPv6 transport patches is called feat_ipv6_transport. *But* as soon as we manage to get the OpenVPN 2.2 release out the door (I'm hope I'll be able to finalise the beta2.2 branch today for the RC release), we're going to merge stuff, including JJO's branch and Gert's feat_ipv6_payload branches officially and get started with the OpenVPN 2.3 cycle. So what I'm saying, please base your stuff on JJO's branch now, but be sure your changes can be merged against the feat_ipv6_payload branch too. As I'm the one going to do the merges, I'm going to be noisy if it doesn't go smooth ;-) And just let me state that, if someone got time to do a real overhaul of socket.c, that would really be beneficial. That source file is confusing at best to read. However, we do have some source documentation patches is the wild somewhere, waiting to go in soonish too - which I'd like to see go into the 2.3 cycle. So - there's a little coordination needed to be done here with such an overhaul too. kind regards, David Sommerseth -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1o6G0ACgkQDC186MBRfrrnPACgg5MNumXBR0McuTEip6/c76lY BacAoIANCG/ZGas/yhiGEbw4U7xqDYeI =PMoQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
