From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject:
 Re: [PATCH] OpenVPN: Introduce Negotiable Crypto Parameters for roadwarriors
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 08:35:10 +0100
Message-ID: <eff5b96cd4dedeb7f709eb34c98decfeed311aa6.camel@ipfire.org>
In-Reply-To: <1ead7074da7323dd3d7acd28c7f3a42e2a881d12.camel@ipfire.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8063783541791864510=="
List-Id: <development.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============8063783541791864510==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

this is indeed on the lower side of some bigger users.

It is quite common to have hundreds of RW connections. >=3D 200 is not very r=
are.

Replacing them because of the MD5 change was troubling for them and that is w=
hy
I am stressing backwards-compatibility so much with the latest changes. It ma=
kes
the difference between OpenVPN being usable or making life a lot worse for the
admins.

Best,
-Michael

On Wed, 2018-08-29 at 23:49 +0200, ummeegge wrote:
> Hi Michael and Alex,
>=20
> Am Mittwoch, den 29.08.2018, 11:33 +0100 schrieb Michael Tremer:
> > >=20
> > > Yes, needed also some braingoo for all that and it seems that it is
> > > not
> > > finished at all...
> >=20
> > Just because this is quite topical today: Alex just told me how long
> > it took him
> > to replace 20 N2N connections and 80 RW connections. Poor him.
> >=20
> > There is a very good reason why we don't have OpenVPN in IPFire 3.
>=20
> 100 connections are a lot. Can we use this knowlegdge for bugreports on
> OpenPVN or is this topic (OpenVPN) just obsolet ?=20
>=20
> > >=20
> > > Best,
> > >=20
> > > Erik
> >=20
> >=20


--===============8063783541791864510==--