> When reviewing the patch "FQDN for routes should expand to all IPs"
> today, I spotted that there is a function called getaddr() (renamed to
> getaddr_all() in the mentioned patch). This function again makes use of
> the old gethostbyname() function. This is not compatible with IPv6
> addresses
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 2:47 PM, David Sommerseth
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all!
>
> When reviewing the patch "FQDN for routes should expand to all IPs"
> today, I spotted that there is a function called getaddr() (renamed to
> getaddr_all() in the mentioned p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17/02/10 17:20, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:47:28PM +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
>> When reviewing the patch "FQDN for routes should expand to all IPs"
>> today, I spotted that there is a function called getaddr() (re
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:47:28PM +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
> When reviewing the patch "FQDN for routes should expand to all IPs"
> today, I spotted that there is a function called getaddr() (renamed to
> getaddr_all() in the mentioned patch). This function again makes use of
> the old
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all!
When reviewing the patch "FQDN for routes should expand to all IPs"
today, I spotted that there is a function called getaddr() (renamed to
getaddr_all() in the mentioned patch). This function again makes use of
the old gethostbyname() functio
Hi,
I added ipv6 support to tun driver for solaris.
Full source tar ball and patch against original universal tun/tap driver is
available here.
http://www.whiteboard.ne.jp/~admin2/tuntap/
In response to this change, I revised the patch against openvpn and set
'ipv6_explicitly_supported' to true
James Yonan wrote:
> Marcel Pennewiß wrote:
>> On Thursday 13 November 2008 01:23:46 Marcel Pennewiß wrote:
>>> Hi,
>> Hi again,
>>
>>> a long time ago Juanjo Ciarlante wrote a patch for openvpn to create a
>>> tunnel via ipv6 [1]. Later i fixed the patch to work with openvpn-2.0 and
>>> 2.1 which
Marcel Pennewiß wrote:
On Thursday 13 November 2008 01:23:46 Marcel Pennewiß wrote:
Hi,
Hi again,
a long time ago Juanjo Ciarlante wrote a patch for openvpn to create a
tunnel via ipv6 [1]. Later i fixed the patch to work with openvpn-2.0 and
2.1 which i use on OpenWRT and Gentoo. Roy (from
On Thursday 13 November 2008 01:23:46 Marcel Pennewiß wrote:
> Hi,
Hi again,
> a long time ago Juanjo Ciarlante wrote a patch for openvpn to create a
> tunnel via ipv6 [1]. Later i fixed the patch to work with openvpn-2.0 and
> 2.1 which i use on OpenWRT and Gentoo. Roy (from Gentoo) wrote about
Hi,
a long time ago Juanjo Ciarlante wrote a patch for openvpn to create a tunnel
via ipv6 [1]. Later i fixed the patch to work with openvpn-2.0 and 2.1 which
i use on OpenWRT and Gentoo. Roy (from Gentoo) wrote about this also to the
devel-list [1]. But since that no one answered :(
What abo
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 10:18:55AM -0500, Charles Duffy wrote:
> Personally, I think that adding IPv6 support (with its massive space for
> private networks) is a better long-term fix for this issue.
On that note, does anyone have any idea what the status of IPv6
support is? (I know about the ol
Hi
I've finished polishing mi udp6 patch for openvpn-2.0
You can get it from
http://www.irrigacion.gov.ar/juanjo/openvpn/
There are two patch flavors: udp6 and udp6+MH (mutlihome , as required by
James for merging). I've successfully tested udp6 on both (MH support
compiles ok but it isn
12 matches
Mail list logo
