> Reap the benefits of engauging with the larger
> FOSS community, not just the OpenVPN community.
> Without the larger community OpenVPN would,
> at minimum, be greatly diminished. It makes
> sense to reach out.
>
I agree you on this. I personally have trouble figuring out which
approach woul
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 05:42:07PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> Let's not add more complexity to openvpn itself, I'd be much happier if
> > You just don't understand.
> > The complexity *WILL* be in OpenVPN, if we decide to support
> > "route-gateway dhcp" for non-Windows platforms.
>
>
On 03/11/2010 04:42:07 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> Let's not add more complexity to openvpn itself, I'd be much
> happier if
> > You just don't understand.
> > The complexity *WILL* be in OpenVPN, if we decide to support
> > "route-gateway dhcp" for non-Windows platforms.
>
> I'm not sure what
On 03/11/2010 04:42:07 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> I find the effort would be better spent on working with other people
> trying to make sure that ifplugd/NetworkManager/distributions/...
> make
> this setup as troublefree as possible.
Exactly.
As an example appended is a 47 line patch to th
>> Let's not add more complexity to openvpn itself, I'd be much happier if
> You just don't understand.
> The complexity *WILL* be in OpenVPN, if we decide to support
> "route-gateway dhcp" for non-Windows platforms.
I'm not sure what "route-gateway dhcp" does, so maybe that's part of the
reason
On 03/11/2010 01:21:19 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> This might be the other big misunderstanding here. As of today, if
> you
> want to use "ifplugd + dhcp + ..." on a TAP interface, just do so -
> OpenVPN
> won't stand in your way. This is not the issue at hand - the issue
> is
> that OpenVPN wan
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 05:07:29PM +0100, Jan Just Keijser wrote:
> Let's not add more complexity to openvpn itself, I'd be much happier if
You just don't understand.
The complexity *WILL* be in OpenVPN, if we decide to support
"route-gateway dhcp" for non-Windows platforms.
The question i
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 04:10:23PM +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
> In my point of view, it's more important to find a solution which will
> be easy to maintain in the OpenVPN code and which doesn't give a
> headache to the package maintainers or system admins needing to
> configure OpenVPN.
>>> Implementing a DHCP client within OpenVPN tends to make this a more
>>> self-contained problem.
>> I don't think OpenVPN should get into the DHCP business.
>> Especially because this is not a problem specific to OpenVPN: the same
>> problem of refreshing DHCP info happens with ethernet and with
Stefan Monnier wrote:
Implementing a DHCP client within OpenVPN tends to make this a more
self-contained problem.
I don't think OpenVPN should get into the DHCP business.
Especially because this is not a problem specific to OpenVPN: the same
problem of refreshing DHCP info happens with eth
On 03/11/2010 09:10:23 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
> I agree to your points, from a theoretical point of view. But from a
> practical point of view, I'm not sure how possible it is to find a
> more
> generic solution which can be used on all *nix based setups. AFAIK,
> ifplugd is very Linux orie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/03/10 14:51, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Implementing a DHCP client within OpenVPN tends to make this a more
>> self-contained problem.
>
> I don't think OpenVPN should get into the DHCP business.
> Especially because this is not a problem specific
> Implementing a DHCP client within OpenVPN tends to make this a more
> self-contained problem.
I don't think OpenVPN should get into the DHCP business.
Especially because this is not a problem specific to OpenVPN: the same
problem of refreshing DHCP info happens with ethernet and with wifi when
y
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:52:00PM +, Timothy Baldwin wrote:
> James Yonan wrote:
>
> > Implementing a DHCP client within OpenVPN tends to make this a more
> > self-contained problem.
>
> But what about IPv6, tunnels and DHCP prefix delegation?
IPv6 is a separate issue. The current IP
James Yonan wrote:
> Implementing a DHCP client within OpenVPN tends to make this a more
> self-contained problem.
But what about IPv6, tunnels and DHCP prefix delegation? Invoking the
distribution auto-configuration/ scripts makes more sense.
> My understanding of dhcp is that the client is supposed to
> automatically reconfigure on lease expiration
Yes.
> or whenever the link goes up and down.
Not necessarily, and that's the problem.
> I suppose it's possible that there are dhcp clients
> that exit when the link goes down and must
On 03/09/2010 11:27:13 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
> On 09/03/10 17:41, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> > On 03/09/2010 10:16:37 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
> >
> >>> Over-automating things will cause people headaches.
> >>> You don't want to willy-nilly startup a dhcp client
> >>> and have all your interfac
Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> I'm not at all sure it solves the core issues, which is that
> an already running dhcp client won't have auto-detected
> the tap interface that OpenVPN creates -- iff OpenVPN is
> started after the dhcp client.
Note that several DHCP clients only handle one interface per DHC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/03/10 17:41, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> On 03/09/2010 10:16:37 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
>
>>> Over-automating things will cause people headaches.
>>> You don't want to willy-nilly startup a dhcp client
>>> and have all your interfaces configured w
On 03/09/2010 10:16:37 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
> > Over-automating things will cause people headaches.
> > You don't want to willy-nilly startup a dhcp client
> > and have all your interfaces configured with dhcp without
> > your consent.
>
> Exactly! Which again moves it more in the directi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/03/10 16:34, James Yonan wrote:
>> looking at the multitude of DHCP clients available for unix, the completely
>> different handling of DHCP on MacOS, and the issues that most unix clients
>> seem to have with "DHCP active on two different interf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/03/10 16:58, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> On 03/09/2010 08:05:17 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, ./configure
>> could try to detect which DHCP client the system got and could use
>> that
>> as a default client to kick off.
>
> I t
On 03/09/2010 08:01:32 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > bring the interfaces up
> > start dhcp client (if not triggered directly from the interfaces)
> > start openvpn
>
> That is a misconfiguration in my book. The only correct
> configuration
> is when the dhcp client is triggered from the interfa
On 03/09/2010 08:05:17 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
> On the other hand, ./configure
> could try to detect which DHCP client the system got and could use
> that
> as a default client to kick off.
I think this might cause more problems than it solves because
there's no guarantee that build hosts w
On 03/09/2010 12:47:36 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> > The boot order that makes sense to me is:
> >
> > bring the interfaces up
> > start dhcp client (if not triggered directly from the interfaces)
> > start openvpn
> >
> > The problem is that if the dhcp client is started befor
looking at the multitude of DHCP clients available for unix, the completely
different handling of DHCP on MacOS, and the issues that most unix clients
seem to have with "DHCP active on two different interfaces (ethX and tapY),
and both trying to set a default gateway", ...
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/03/10 17:14, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> On 03/08/2010 09:21:35 AM, James Yonan wrote:
>> OpenVPN 2.1 has a relatively recent feature that allows a TAP-based
>> OpenVPN session to be established where the client gets its IP
>> address
>>
[...snip...]
> bring the interfaces up
> start dhcp client (if not triggered directly from the interfaces)
> start openvpn
That is a misconfiguration in my book. The only correct configuration
is when the dhcp client is triggered from the interface. After all,
openvpn may take half an hour to get the connect
Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> The boot order that makes sense to me is:
>
> bring the interfaces up
> start dhcp client (if not triggered directly from the interfaces)
> start openvpn
>
> The problem is that if the dhcp client is started before openvpn
> and openvpn is creating the tap interface then it'
On 03/08/2010 05:09:49 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> I think if the user just starts the dhcp client on an interface
> >> independently from the moment the interface goes up (or down),
> this
>
> >> is simply a misconfiguration.
> > I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that manually starti
>> I think if the user just starts the dhcp client on an interface
>> independently from the moment the interface goes up (or down), this
>> is simply a misconfiguration.
> I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that manually starting
> a dhcp client means that the system is mis-configured bec
On 03/08/2010 03:26:11 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > In either case we'd be looking at an openvpn configuration
> > directive (or 2) that takes a command to run once
> > the link comes up (and down). If that was in place then
> > any of A, B, C, or D, or your choice of using an ifup/ifdown
> > scr
> In either case we'd be looking at an openvpn configuration
> directive (or 2) that takes a command to run once
> the link comes up (and down). If that was in place then
> any of A, B, C, or D, or your choice of using an ifup/ifdown
> script would all work.
BTW, there are generic tools to run/st
On 03/08/2010 02:26:13 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> > > I know of at least four DHCP clients and I avoid dhclient as much
> as
> > > possible. It would be a tremendous mistake to tie OpenVPN to any
> one
> > > DHCP client IMO.
> >
> > Only D is tied to dhclient. A, B, and C, wor
Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> > I know of at least four DHCP clients and I avoid dhclient as much as
> > possible. It would be a tremendous mistake to tie OpenVPN to any one
> > DHCP client IMO.
>
> Only D is tied to dhclient. A, B, and C, work fine with any dhcp
> client daemon. (Or A does anyway, B an
On 03/08/2010 10:50:48 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> > > I'm hoping that we can make "route-gateway dhcp" work on Unix
> > > platforms as well. I'm thinking there are two possible ways we
> > > could do this:
>
> Network interface configuration is highly distribution specific.
>
Hi,
looking at the multitude of DHCP clients available for unix, the completely
different handling of DHCP on MacOS, and the issues that most unix clients
seem to have with "DHCP active on two different interfaces (ethX and tapY),
and both trying to set a default gateway", ...
On Mon, Mar 08, 201
Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> > I'm hoping that we can make "route-gateway dhcp" work on Unix
> > platforms as well. I'm thinking there are two possible ways we
> > could do this:
Network interface configuration is highly distribution specific.
> A) dhclient
>
> B) dhclient.conf
>
> C) dhclient
>
>
On 03/08/2010 09:21:35 AM, James Yonan wrote:
> OpenVPN 2.1 has a relatively recent feature that allows a TAP-based
> OpenVPN session to be established where the client gets its IP
> address
>
> assignment and other attributes from the server-side DHCP server.
> I'm hoping that we can make "rou
OpenVPN 2.1 has a relatively recent feature that allows a TAP-based
OpenVPN session to be established where the client gets its IP address
assignment and other attributes from the server-side DHCP server.
The feature is enabled by the "route-gateway dhcp" directive on the client.
It's a pretty
40 matches
Mail list logo
