On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, Aaron Sethman wrote: > I'm not necessarly sure it belongs in OpenVPN, but then again, I can see > the advantages to automatically failover to other links. Perhaps > abstracting things out in the code a bit that it would be possible to have > multiple methods of sending data out to the world, perhaps even non-ip > methods. Or even implementing something as tunnelling over TCP(I do know > the reasons why you don't want to do this, but in some cases you don't > have a choice, and are willing to eat the performance loss).
TCP-over-TCP tunnelling isn't necessarily a performance loss, but it also exhibits excessive retransmit behaviour -- which isn't too bad if you have congested links and need to take a bigger share than the others ;-) I've always found vpnd (tcp-over-tcp) to be more stable than vtund (over udp in my configurations) across congested links, but I haven't compared vpnd to openvpn. (And I've found vtund to be fragile, a single ping -f into a tunnel usually let the tunnel collapse on Linux. OpenVPN is solid in these circumstances.) -- Matthias Andree
