>> Note: active-ftp NAT will never be merged - that is way too intrusive.
Yes, we realize that. That is why we didn't pursue acceptance any
further. But we still require it because we have to support a large number
(currently around 3000) of legacy devices that cannot be changed away from
active-
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:24:18AM -0700, Marvin wrote:
> Only that here we need to run Gava's patches for active-ftp and client-nat
> (submitted to openvpn-dev several years ago but not accepted). He has not
> had time to port those patches to 2.4.x yet. So for now we are stuck at
> 2.3.18.
HI Gert,
Only that here we need to run Gava's patches for active-ftp and client-nat
(submitted to openvpn-dev several years ago but not accepted). He has not
had time to port those patches to 2.4.x yet. So for now we are stuck at
2.3.18.
Marvin
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:10 AM, Gert Doering w
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:03:55AM -0700, Marvin wrote:
> Would there be any problem with updating the tap-windows6 to the Viscosity
> patched version on an older openvpn build (e.g. 2.3.18 on Windows 10)?
"Why?"
There is nothing in 2.3.x (... that we are aware of) that makes it more
suitabl
Hi Guys,
Would there be any problem with updating the tap-windows6 to the Viscosity
patched version on an older openvpn build (e.g. 2.3.18 on Windows 10)?
Thanks,
Marvin
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 8:45 PM, Eric Thorpe wrote:
> Hi Gert,
>
> PR #47 has been submitted to tap-windows6 on github.
>
>
Hi Gert,
PR #47 has been submitted to tap-windows6 on github.
Regards,
Eric
--
Eric Thorpe
SparkLabs Developer
https://www.sparklabs.com
https://twitter.com/sparklabs
supp...@sparklabs.com
On 12/04/2018 6:26 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi Eric,
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 02:25:56PM +1100, Eric Thor
On 13/04/18 04:22, Jan Just Keijser wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12/04/18 16:50, Gert Doering wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:27:08AM -0400, Selva Nair wrote:
> This change was made not because of any actual performance gains, but
> because of user reports that certain firewall or
Hi,
On 12/04/18 16:50, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:27:08AM -0400, Selva Nair wrote:
This change was made not because of any actual performance gains, but
because of user reports that certain firewall or AV software tries to
QoS the adapter based on its reported adapter s
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:27:08AM -0400, Selva Nair wrote:
> > > > This change was made not because of any actual performance gains, but
> > > > because of user reports that certain firewall or AV software tries to
> > > > QoS
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:27:08AM -0400, Selva Nair wrote:
> > > This change was made not because of any actual performance gains, but
> > > because of user reports that certain firewall or AV software tries to
> > > QoS the adapter based on its reported adapter speed, which is of course
> >
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:26 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 02:25:56PM +1100, Eric Thorpe wrote:
> > One of the Viscosity developers here. The TAP driver used by Viscosity
> > is based on the OpenVPN TAP-Windows driver. We're surprised to hear of
> > any perfo
Hi Eric,
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 02:25:56PM +1100, Eric Thorpe wrote:
> One of the Viscosity developers here. The TAP driver used by Viscosity
> is based on the OpenVPN TAP-Windows driver. We're surprised to hear of
> any performance differences, as the changes we've made are very minimal.
>
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
