On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, JuanJo Ciarlante wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 06:27:03PM -0600, James Yonan wrote: > > I would like to merge your IPv6 patch into the 2.1 branch, once it gets > > started (I'd like to keep the 2.0.x branch as stable as possible, with > > minimalistic changes that don't go beyond bug fixes and small patches). > > > > One potential speed bump will be in merging both IPv6 + the multihomed > > patch which will definitely be going into 2.1: > > > > http://openvpn.net/patch/openvpn-2.0_rc16MH.patch > > > > Because both patches touch much of the same code, there will likely be a > > need for manual merging. > > Ok ... indeed I tested "patch --dry ..." and shouted about 80% rejects. > I could merge both in my own CVS, but because it's a rather daunting task, > I would like to be sure it's a productive one :-) ie. that it will have a > high chance to be merged , of course, if resulting patch quality qualifies.
The MH (multihomed) patch has a near 100% chance of being merged, since it is necessary for OpenVPN to operate properly as a multihomed server. Here is more info about it: http://openvpn.net/archive/openvpn-users/2005-02/msg00640.html The important thing in doing the merge is not so much to make the multihomed feature work with IPv6 (right away) as it is to do the correct accounting and authentication of both source and destination address of received packets (without this patch, OpenVPN does not keep track of destination IP address of received packets when running in a multi-homed context). I think it's a fairly high priority to get your IPv6 patch + MH + the BETA2.0-THREAD branch in the CVS merged as a baseline for 2.1. I don't expect the BETA2.0-THREAD code to conflict either with the MH or IPv6 patches. I'd be glad to work with you on this, as I am also interested in extending the IPv6 support to allow IPv6 tunnels over OpenVPN in client/server mode (right now, IPv6 tunnels are only supported in point-to-point mode). Incidentally, does your IPv6 patch affect performance when it is inactive, i.e. when IPv4 is being used? Thanks, James
