Federico Heinz wrote:
> On 12/03/2011, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > Federico Heinz wrote:
> > > What I'm trying to solve here is a much simpler (and, in my case,
> > > frequent) use case: I'm starting several instances of OpenVPN,
> > > and I need each of them to listen on specific interfaces, but
> > >
On 12/03/2011, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Federico Heinz wrote:
> > What I'm trying to solve here is a much simpler (and, in my case,
> > frequent) use case: I'm starting several instances of OpenVPN,
> > and I need each of them to listen on specific interfaces, but
> > their dyndns addresses may not be
Federico Heinz wrote:
> What I'm trying to solve here is a much simpler (and, in my case,
> frequent) use case: I'm starting several instances of OpenVPN, and I
> need each of them to listen on specific interfaces, but their dyndns
> addresses may not be up-to date yet, so I can specify neither an
Joe Patterson wrote:
> I'm actually kind of curious what reasons there would be that
> listening to 0.0.0.0 would be undesireable.
..
> if you want to have different configurations bound to different
> interfaces,
Exactly.
> while I could possibly see having one configuration for Internet
> user
On 12/03/2011, Joe Patterson wrote:
> I'm all for adding flexibility, but this really seems like a
> solution to a problem for which there's hardly ever *not* a better
> work-around.
As I just mentioned in an answer to Peter, listening on 0.0.0.0
doesn't work reliably on my setup, please refer to
On 12/03/2011, Peter Stuge wrote:
> There are components in your system which *will* know when your
> address is reconfigured. Please just configure them to reconfigure
> OpenVPN. This would seem to be a good use for the management
> interface in OpenVPN.
I'm not worried abut the IP number *changi
I'm actually kind of curious what reasons there would be that
listening to 0.0.0.0 would be undesireable. For other daemons, I can
see a rationale because of two reasons, one being that you don't trust
the security of the daemon and want to add interface specificity to
your firewall rules for belt
Federico Heinz wrote:
> The reason I looked into this in the first place was that, unlike
> those TCP-based protocols, I couldn't get OpenVPN to work on a
> firewall with two external IP addresses without running two deamons,
> each one bound to one interface only. It is then that I stumbled upon
>
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 00:35:17 -0300 Federico Heinz wrote:
> The reason I looked into this in the first place was that, unlike
> those TCP-based protocols, I couldn't get OpenVPN to work on a
> firewall with two external IP addresses without running two deamons,
> each one bound to one interface on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/03/2011, David Sommerseth wrote:
> Sorry that you haven't received any response quickly. Most of us
> here are having full time jobs which is not directly related to
> OpenVPN.
I'm sorry if I sounded like I felt that answers were slow in coming
10 matches
Mail list logo
