Matthias Andree <ma+ov...@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> said: > On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, James Yonan wrote: > > > (1) Forking server support > > (2) Automatic Secure MTU discovery > > (3) IPv6 endpoints or IPv6 over tun device > > (4) Windows port > > > > While none of these (with perhaps the exception of the last :) is > > rocket science, all require some work, and given that OpenVPN has > > reached a nice stability plateau, I'd like to hear your opinions on > > future directions in the development effort. > > ad 1) what's this good for? Sharing one port? Won't really work with > UDP. Convenience? Go get daemontools, or let's figure if openvpn > can be run from xinetd. Not something that should be done unless > you're really bored or have some compelling reason (a malicious > person holding a gun against your head might be one). Don't waste > your time.
Well actually "Forking server support" is really a misnomer. It would be better titled "Server support for arbitrary number of connecting clients without requiring a separate config file and a pre-instantiated daemon for every client, or just "scalability support". xinetd is an interesting idea. Anyone using xinetd with OpenVPN? > ad 2) I'd like to see that somewhen in the future, but I'd give IPv6 the > preference. > > ad 3) IPv6 is certainly something that will have to be added. > > ad 4) If they want secure networking, they shouldn't be running an > operating system of which the current version forces you to > register with the vendor, sending data you don't control. > > It may be a moot point, but IMHO Windows which is made and sold by > a company that's always looking at its own profit, acting to its > own advantage, no matter how ruthless, and that aims to harm > OpenSource just to fortify its monopoly, to make more money, and > to control ever more markets to further maximize its huge > revenues, should not be supported by OpenSource developers. While I agree that Windows is marketed by an aggressive monopoly, I don't agree that just because a company is anti-open-source, we shouldn't port open source software to its platform or make *nix implementations of its protocols. On the contrary, I would argue that the more ruthlessly Microsoft behaves, the more that Open Source can benefit by porting to Windows, because once we have a large body of cross-platform software, then suddenly the OS won't matter as much and people will be free to choose based on quality. And the ultimate weapon against a ruthless monopoly is this: Give customers a choice. Having said that, and having glimpsed the cries of agony on the cipe-win32 list from those who have faced the windows network driver model, I expect that a win port will not be a panacea. James > If your opinion differs from mine, that's called freedom. :-) > Matthias Andree
