On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Arne Schwabe <a...@rfc2549.org> wrote:
> > I think using utun as default at least for -master and 2.4rc candidates is > a good way to get the feature tested. I hope there is time in the next > OpenVPN developer IRC meeting to decide if my or your patch should be > included. I won't be in the IRC chat, so here are my comments on Arne's patch vs. Peter's patch from a feature perspective: The behavior difference between the two patches seems to be that Arne's patch defaults to using utun, whereas Peter's patch defaults to tun. >From what I understand, utun seems to work and even works in some situations where the standard tuntaposx tun doesn't and is the Apple-supported standard. So I think users should transition to using it. To help them along, I think defaulting to utun is a good idea. I intend to add 2.4rc builds to Tunnelblick when they are available and to support utun on 10.7+ systems. (Tunnelblick lets users choose which OpenVPN version they use; usually I allow two or three choices, so it's easy to add new versions of OpenVPN for testing.) Whichever patch is included, I think Tunnelblick's default will be to use utun, and give the user a way to override that and use tun. It looks like I can easily use tun with Arne's patch by specifying "--dev-type tun" to revert to using tun, and easily use utun with Peter's patch by specifying "--dev-impl-osx utun". I have a slight preference forArne's patch, which doesn't introduce yet another new OpenVPN option. I am not expressing an opinion on the code in the patches, but only on their default behaviors.
