Re: [Openvpn-devel] [PATCH v3] Floating: Add support for floating in TLS mode

Hi, On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 02:28:51PM +0100, Arne Schwabe wrote: > > 2) What you mean by "hack"? Do you mean new packet format or something else? > The byte juggling the compress does. Actually the "compress byte swap hack" is for the de-crypted material, while *this* discussion is concernced

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [PATCH v3] Floating: Add support for floating in TLS mode

Am 03.01.14 12:58, schrieb Lev Stipakov: > Hi Arne, > > I am researching how "session id" can be added to packet. Could you please > clarify the statement "If we choose the session id to be 3 or 7 byte we > would not need the "hack" for the packets with > session id." ? > > I am currently at

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [PATCH v3] Floating: Add support for floating in TLS mode

Hi! On 30.12.2013 18:31, Arne Schwabe wrote: For negoating the packet format the client would submit something like IV_CLNT_SUPPORT 1 or similar (look at the IV_SNAPPY, IV_LZO for compression) to tell the server the supported format and the server would push a packet-format 1 or something

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [PATCH v3] Floating: Add support for floating in TLS mode

Hi Arne, I am researching how "session id" can be added to packet. Could you please clarify the statement "If we choose the session id to be 3 or 7 byte we would not need the "hack" for the packets with session id." ? I am currently at very beginning, so questions might look odd. 1) "3 or 7"

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [PATCH v3] Floating: Add support for floating in TLS mode

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 4:43 PM, André Valentin wrote: > On 23.12.2013 12:32, Gert Doering wrote: >> We've discussed the patch on the Munich Hackathon, and we intend to do >> it in a different way. James wants to change the packet format for >> data packets anyway (due to

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [PATCH v3] Floating: Add support for floating in TLS mode

Hi! On 23.12.2013 12:32, Gert Doering wrote: > We've discussed the patch on the Munich Hackathon, and we intend to do > it in a different way. James wants to change the packet format for > data packets anyway (due to bad alignment in the current packet format), > and the new format would have