On Apr 6, 2005 6:30 AM, Mathias Sundman <math...@nilings.se> wrote: > On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Tomas Nouza wrote: > > > So my question is, if there is a plan to develop a > > lightweigh client, that would not need a TUN/TAP > > interface. Now you can say it's not possible, but it > > is, with some limitations: > > The client would support only tunneling, and it would > > listen on config/command-line specified tcp/udp ports > > on localhost, encrypt each packet and send it. > > Received and decrypted packets would of course appear > > on the localhost (loopback) interface. The usage would > > be similar to SSH port tunneling, while the openvpn > > lightweight client would support OpenVPN servers, and > > port ranges tunnelling. > > What would you gain from making OpenVPN work this way, compared to using > stunnel that was designed todo just this in the first place? >
IMHO UDP support. Of course if OpenSSL supported UDP.... -- Leonard Isham, CISSP Ostendo non ostento.
