thanks to you all, that line was the problem.
withput it fallback works fine.
> On 21 Oct 2015, at 18:32, Selva Nair wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Stefan Szabo wrote:
> hi,
>
> without proto tcp declaration it doesnt try over
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Stefan Szabo
wrote:
> hi,
>
> without proto tcp declaration it doesnt try over tcp, all that is doing is
> udp.
>
> if the first line is proto tcp, the first connection is over tcp, after
> that jumps over UDP.UDP is tried for 5 times
hi,
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 01:14:26PM -0400, Selva Nair wrote:
> Why? Because of this line in the config:
>
> persist-remote-ip
[..]
> That will keep trying X:1194 only with whatever protocol is defined before
> those lines (or udp by default), if persist-remote-ip is also specified.
> This is
Hi Gert,
Yes the problem remains (see below)..
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> hi,
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 01:14:26PM -0400, Selva Nair wrote:
> > Why? Because of this line in the config:
> >
> > persist-remote-ip
> [..]
> > That will keep trying
- Original Message -
From: "Gert Doering" <g...@greenie.muc.de>
To: "Selva Nair" <selva.n...@gmail.com>
Cc: <openvpn-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Openvpn-users] client config fallback fro
Hi Folks
sorry to chime in late (and unsolicited)
Am 21.10.2015 um 22:48 schrieb Gert Doering:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 04:37:57PM -0400, Selva Nair wrote:
>> If I'm not mistaken, persist-remote-ip pre-dates connection-list support.
>> With multiple options conditionally depending on
- Original Message -
From: "Selva Nair" <selva.n...@gmail.com>
To: "Gert Doering" <g...@greenie.muc.de>; "Debbie Tent"
<debbie...@gmail.com>
Cc: <openvpn-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:37 PM
Subject
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 04:37:57PM -0400, Selva Nair wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, persist-remote-ip pre-dates connection-list support.
> With multiple options conditionally depending on each other, such seemingly
> unexpected behaviour is no surprise.. Call it feature or a bug. The user
>
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 5:39 PM, wrote:
> Results you could have SHARED in the FIRST place ..
>
Go through the thread carefully -- I was the first to point out the
conflict between persist-ip and multiple remotes. I tested this with 2.3.8
this morning seeing the OP's post,
openvpn server: OpenVPN 2.3.8 x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
openvpn client: Tunnelblick 3.6beta10 (build 4400)
config client:
remote 62.231.75.XX
port 80
proto tcp wait 1
remote 62.231.75.XX
port 1194
proto udp wait 10
client
dev tun
resolv-retry infinite
nobind
persist-key
persist-tun
Hi,
First: do you have two server instances listening on both proto/port
combinations ?
Second: Your config will cycle through each connection block until it
connects
(presuming you do not use --remote-random)
A MUCH more appropriate solution would be to have TWO separate config files
and use
On 21/10/15 09:49, debbie...@gmail.com wrote:
> NOTE: Just because you specify HTTP port 80 does not mean an intervening
> firewall is not capable of detecting a NON HTTP protocol and blocking you
> anyway.
I agree - in fact I'd suggest NEVER use tcp/80 and instead use tcp/443 -
as that's just as
12 matches
Mail list logo