Hi,
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:35:33AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> https://git.gnome.org/browse/network-manager-openvpn/commit/?id=77115c5377e009220c3c98102450f92d3a7f6f9e
>
> This will likely go into Fedora 20.
Woot! This is great news indeed :-)
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable p
* Tore Anderson
>>> FWIW, I'd like to push the GNOME NetworkManager folks some more
>>> to implement IPv6 support in their OpenVPN plugin, which is
>>> currently IPv4 only. This patch breaks one of the assumptions
>>> made there, in particular that IPv4 transport will always be used
>>> when OpenV
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:17:31AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Gert Doering
>
> >> FWIW, I'd like to push the GNOME NetworkManager folks some more to
> >> implement IPv6 support in their OpenVPN plugin, which is currently IPv4
> >> only. This patch breaks one of the assumptions made there
* Gert Doering
> Thanks for your patience :-) - indeed, it has been way too long, but
> (insert long list of excuses)...
Good things come to those who wait :-)
>> FWIW, I'd like to push the GNOME NetworkManager folks some more to
>> implement IPv6 support in their OpenVPN plugin, which is curren
Hi Tore,
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:48:20PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> >> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:23:52AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> >> [..]
> >>> ACK, I tested several different fail-over scenarios and all worked fine.
> >>> Also all my pre-existing VPNs (maintained by GNOME NetworkManag
Am 22.06.13 12:48, schrieb Tore Anderson:
It's been half a year, so I was wondering if this patch has been
forgotten about? I don't see it in either the master branch of either
the openvpn or openvpn-testing git repo.
FWIW, I'd like to push the GNOME NetworkManager folks some more to
implement I
* Samuli Seppänen
>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:23:52AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
>>> * Arne Schwabe
>>>
This patch contains a number of changes. I did not further spit this
since some changes make only sense being changed together.
>> [..]
>>> ACK, I tested several different fail-over
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:23:52AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
>> * Arne Schwabe
>>
>>> This patch contains a number of changes. I did not further spit this
>>> since some changes make only sense being changed together.
> [..]
>> ACK, I tested several different fail-over scenarios and al
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:23:52AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Arne Schwabe
>
> > This patch contains a number of changes. I did not further spit this
> > since some changes make only sense being changed together.
[..]
>
> ACK, I tested several different fail-over scenarios and all worke
* Arne Schwabe
> This patch contains a number of changes. I did not further spit this
> since some changes make only sense being changed together.
>
> Always use connection_list, simplifies the reconnection logic.
>
> Change meaning of --connect-retry-max and --connect-retry to be used
> all con
On 30.11.2012 20:17, Arne Schwabe wrote:
Change meaning from udp and tcp to allow both IPv4 and IPv6. Introducue new
udp4 and tcp4 to force IPv4.
The tcp4 and tcp6 should only temporary. I will later follow up with a
patch which cleans up the protocol names and options. But I did not want
this
This patch contains a number of changes. I did not further spit this since some
changes make only sense being changed together.
Always use connection_list, simplifies the reconnection logic.
Change meaning of --connect-retry-max and --connect-retry to be used all
connections. This now allows Op
12 matches
Mail list logo
