|
|
So a UDP-using process cannot pass a SOCKET to another process, and have them both use (what the operating system would think is) the same socket, but (connect thinks) are different conversations? This shows my distinct lack of knowledge of the SOCKETS library, but I'm rathar disapointed if they cannot be shared across processes :-/ Here's an idea, could there be a "central muxing" process that other processes communicate via a named pipe or something? Quoting James Yonan <jim@xxxxxxxxx>: > TCP allows port reuse because it is connection-oriented. A hundred > different > connections to the same well-known port is possible, because the OS can fork > separate processes for each connection instance, and the IP stack can keep > track of them. > > UDP, however, is another matter. Because UDP is connectionless, the > destination port number is the key piece of information that tells the OS > which process to route the packet to. And you want to use multiple > processes > for multiple tunnels because you want the SMP scalability win. ------------------------------------------------- Mail sent from: 12.229.232.20 ____________________________________________ Openvpn-users mailing list Openvpn-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users |