Just a recommendation, but I wouldn't necessarily consider the two proposals alternatives. The only interesting thing going on here is an implementation of open_tun that creates utun devices. The rest is just wiring. Even open_tun isn't really subtle or complex, merely a bit arcane. I suspect the key decisions are how aggressive to make the migration path and how discoverable to make the configuration--if any--at which point there is now more than enough raw material from which to assemble the feature.
Thanks On Jun 17, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Gert Doering <g...@greenie.muc.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:33:54AM -0400, Jonathan K. Bullard wrote: >> I have a slight preference forArne's patch, which doesn't introduce yet >> another new OpenVPN option. > > Without having compared the code itself, I second that argument. No more > super-special-case options (which depend on #ifdef TARGET_XYZ), please. > > Now it might be a good idea to find time to actually read both patches > before Thursday and have a more educated opinion :-) *put on TODO list* > > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: > > Build for Windows Store. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev_______________________________________________ > Openvpn-devel mailing list > Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
