[Patch] Allows tun_mainloop to handle multiple packets in single read.
admin2 at whiteboard.ne.jp
Sat Dec 3 12:15:37 EST 2011
2011/12/4 David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org>:
> On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 01:22 +0900, Kazuyoshi Aizawa wrote:
>> Umm, I think there's no simple way to reuse existing interface.
>> When control stream(*1) is closed, protocol stream(*2) is unlinked
>> from PPA(*3)
>> Simply put, once openconnect daemon is terminated, tun driver itself
>> forgets about instance number it was linked...so it is no longer usable.
> Hm, so what is the point in having I_PLINK at all? Can it *ever* be
> useful? It sounds like we should just switch to I_LINK as you suggest.
As I said before, I don't know the benefit of using I_PLINK in openvpn..
Or there might have been some negative impact by using I_LINK...
But, I think it would be better to use I_LINK in your case.
** Of cause I_PLINK is useful for normal case. ifconfig command and
other admin command needs it.
The problem in tuntap driver is that the interface can only survive when
control stream exists.(Imagine that control stream is equivalent to physical
> I'm increasingly convinced that I should do a trivial openconnect server
> which *just* works over TCP and with a predefined cookie. I can then
> give you an "account" with that...
That's nice. I appreciate it if you would.
More information about the openconnect-devel