From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail02.haj.ipfire.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail02.haj.ipfire.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4fH0wV4grTz33gl for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2026 17:38:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail01.ipfire.org (mail01.haj.ipfire.org [172.28.1.202]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519) (Client CN "mail01.haj.ipfire.org", Issuer "R12" (not verified)) by mail02.haj.ipfire.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4fH0wR1JZKz2xHh for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2026 17:38:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail01.ipfire.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4fH0wQ5xmtz2kB; Thu, 19 Feb 2026 17:38:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfire.org; s=202003ed25519; t=1771522710; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ALo167H/g1asCoIz4McjJeOxZqDavmL0gQwqD94qxtc=; b=8g1JIBGsTk6UbFWPmkeYtswAK7FEqMwjpgIkw9e2w+GhhwqXuZd/wciGqZ2s1SdBfwuSM1 FJzTEFjW6QQj1YDA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfire.org; s=202003rsa; t=1771522710; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ALo167H/g1asCoIz4McjJeOxZqDavmL0gQwqD94qxtc=; b=bANQXFx0BhB9Fs3n1HTHAONWPaRrH2wndmXmKGi2B0ak5VST5zPgJ3xuTIgUM9W3K9vdRi hdW1dRsmmTtJWjVQobg54m0kpBZvCKHRUAr8hM9iLX4ndrzzCsvbQBb8gVQuAhGEF6Pzo8 /a4OclVseiJuMLVkRAQxaaCEMbZ3ihdcUlJhDjjz6GbxIIGmZj8KDM+ej4wqsALyOf65jw wM94xfu6VfAl6n/S/s51vQnwQMRGy0j22+7ZdVBhk+9ArKCpEDvv62Ns1lkIPTkIatd41+ +FcNVHMX1U7T6JdSz0F3cX4m4/jcGgU/PvA3RyvOybc1MdSyeSVG3ASxYzmToQ== Message-ID: <8a117269-3a2f-4226-b6cc-39e5f7a9b529@ipfire.org> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2026 18:38:28 +0100 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: Sender: Mail-Followup-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: openvpn-2.7_rc1 To: ummeegge References: <4247a605-6aac-4c9c-93c8-db236c2cb769@ipfire.org> <414d5c1c72ceabb0f3051ba917bb45ff7de3f90f.camel@ipfire.org> <7b53160b-eb3a-4b1b-b068-94057bd680e1@ipfire.org> <1eccafd1bfb3b86c75dd7b3082fd204c3a70e38a.camel@ipfire.org> Content-Language: en-GB Cc: "IPFire: Development-List" From: Adolf Belka In-Reply-To: <1eccafd1bfb3b86c75dd7b3082fd204c3a70e38a.camel@ipfire.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Erik, On 19/02/2026 18:25, ummeegge wrote: > Hello Adolf, > great so you know about :-) . > > Have you recognized the redirect-gateway message too ? No. I tested the build with my existing client connections by installing 2.7 and restoring my backup and testing out the connections for roadwarrior and n2n. None of my connections had the redirect-gateway option selected. > Also, did you check the new script in libexec `dns-updown` ? It seems > that this is a kind of new feature from 2.7.0 (haven´t digged deeper) ? No. I was just checking that existing connections would still work with 2.7 on my thought that we would first move from 2.6 to 2.7 and then look at additional options like DCO etc as follow-up modifications. Of course we could also jump right in to them but then there would need to be more testing for both the major version change and the additional options, especially if those are globally applied and implemented ones. I am not familiar enough with those options to come to any conclusion on that. I was just thinking of making any changes in smaller steps that are easier to confirm as working. I don't fancy another change like we had to do from 2.5 running without negotiation to 2.6 with all its changes. Regards, Adolf. > > Best, > > Erik > > Am Donnerstag, dem 19.02.2026 um 17:04 +0100 schrieb Adolf Belka: >> Hi Erik, >> >> >> On 19/02/2026 16:03, ummeegge wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> since OpenVPN 2.7.0 was released last week, I’ve done some more >>> testing >>> with the new DCO flag. >>> >>> ``` >>> @@ -73,10 +73,10 @@ $(TARGET) : $(patsubst >>> %,$(DIR_DL)/%,$(objects)) >>> cd $(DIR_APP) && ./configure \ >>> --prefix=/usr \ >>> --sysconfdir=/var/ipfire/ovpn \ >>> - --enable-iproute2 \ >>> --enable-plugins \ >>> --enable-plugin-auth-pam \ >>> - --enable-plugin-down-root >>> + --enable-plugin-down-root \ >>> + --enable-dco >>> ``` >>> >>> I’ve found a couple of other issues: >>> >>> There have been some changes in the management interface, and a >>> protocol prefix is now included (e.g. udp4:). >>> As a result, the old regex patterns for >>> a) OpenVPN Connection Statistics and >>> b) Connection Status >>> no longer update or show data. This shouldn’t be hard to fix. >> >> I already have patch fixes for this from my testing of the alpha3, >> beta1 and rc1. If you go to my IPFire git repo (link at end of this >> mail) the patch is in that rc1 branch. There is also the removal of >> the deprecated persist-key which is now always enabled by default. >> >> Regards, >> >> Adolf. >> >>> >>> With OpenVPN 2.7.0, a MULTI ERROR appears when creating a client >>> with >>> “redirect-gateway”. Example message: >>> >>> ``` >>> Feb 19 13:34:36 ipfire-prime openvpnserver[7329]: >>> PeterForden/udp4:192.168.110.10:38103 MULTI ERROR: primary virtual >>> IP >>> for PeterForden/udp4:192.168.110.10:38103 (10.12.52.2) violates >>> tunnel >>> network/netmask constraint (10.73.104.0/255.255.255.0) >>> ``` >>> >>> The connection still works fine, but the log entries don’t look >>> good. >>> This happens because older setups used `redirect-gateway def1` in >>> the >>> advanced options, and remnants of this are still present in >>> server.conf >>> (push "redirect-gateway def1"), even though the checkbox for this >>> option has disappeared. >>> >>> When creating a new client, enabling redirect-gateway (here without >>> def1) now triggers this MULTI ERROR (“violates tunnel >>> network/netmask >>> constraint”). >>> >>> Using redirect-gateway def1 might actually be the better and more >>> modern approach, since it adds two more specific routes (0.0.0.0/1 >>> and >>> 128.0.0.0/1) instead of replacing the original default route — >>> keeping >>> it available as a fallback. >>> >>> → Should `redirect-gateway def1` therefore be pushed globally for >>> all >>> clients? If not explicitly configured otherwise, it would still >>> apply. >>> >>> So far, DCO seems to makes his job. >>> >>> Some smaller issues have been noticed, but I think these are the >>> key >>> points so far. >>> >>> Hope this mail isn’t **too long**, but I thought it might be useful >>> to >>> share. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Erik >>> >>> Am Donnerstag, dem 06.11.2025 um 22:19 +0100 schrieb Adolf Belka: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> Follow-on from my previous mails about testing openvpn- >>>> 2.7_alpha3. >>>> >>>> Since then I have tested out openvpn-2.7_beta1 and today I tested >>>> out >>>> openvpn-2.7_rc1 >>>> >>>> It built without any problems and I also tested it on my vm >>>> system >>>> and confirmed that my android phone and linux laptop road >>>> warriors >>>> worked without any problems. >>>> I also tested out the n2 connection with openvpn-2.7_rc1 at one >>>> end >>>> and openvpn-2.6.15 at the other end and it connected without any >>>> issues. >>>> >>>> So the rc1 version has performed as the previous alpha3 and beta1 >>>> versions. >>>> >>>> I have merged the build branch into my ipfire repo >>>> >>>> https://git.ipfire.org/?p=people/bonnietwin/ipfire-2.x.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/openvpn-2.7_rc1 >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Adolf. >>> >> >