|
|
Claas Hilbrecht <claas+maillinglists.openvpn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > > configuration template, and a new OpenVPN process would be forked off, > > running on a a separate dynamic port (allocated from a pool), and using a > > separate tun/tap interface. > > I'm not sure but isn't there a limit for the maximum tun/tap Devices > somewhere? If not I think this is the best method. If yes and the limit is > small (say 15-30 devices) I think the other method is more useful. Depends on the OS. I believe Linux allows quite a few (256?). On the other hand I doubt Windows could even approach that. Does anyone have practical experience on these limits? My plan is that the initial version of the forking daemon will follow the current OpenVPN model of one process, port, and tun/tap dev for each tunnel, but ease the configuration by automating the instantiation of tunnel processes on a demand basis. Eventually, if we need to implement tun/tap sharing between tunnels, we will need a userspace routing/firewalling library. Fortunately, the tinc project has already developed something along these lines, and I expect we will use it if we need to cross that bridge. James ____________________________________________ Openvpn-users mailing list Openvpn-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users |