From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RvvLd-0005K3-Kb for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:37:30 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DFBA4E0648; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:37:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail2.viabit.com (mail2.viabit.com [65.246.80.16]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4A03E0587 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:36:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.1.204] (unknown [65.213.236.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.viabit.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10D5A3837E for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:36:11 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=orlitzky.com; s=mail2; t=1328898975; bh=NOeHYrMqyjAcbROd3i297CsgYGJDG0kKVQHXckH7eAo=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=A4hUPsjcyhaUPluMYWdZP97W2Ov0ei3KnWHTHIyDHwIV4ndbjNwWQG8oskXIMsIXz OnFmVzjiY0iaKR2dPifVNcfCk6NoXJ0QcYQXOHsSYypq4HkAofVcLmhWJXy0HHnT9P 5YUbPUheWADDxKDmUgzFEwno3BK5TF2jMiP+TfCs= Message-ID: <4F356399.7030304@orlitzky.com> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:36:09 -0500 From: Michael Orlitzky User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120116 Thunderbird/9.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Recommended VPN Tunnel client? References: <201202101505.06700.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <4F355057.4050101@orlitzky.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: c3d3804b-9b66-4056-aaa6-0ea486ad2ac8 X-Archives-Hash: 226ecd69f0f3030ffbed711986183e33 On 02/10/12 13:05, Pandu Poluan wrote: > > No, no, no. What I meant was running TCP and UDP *on top of* OpenVPN > (which uses UDP). > > HAproxy seems to be able to perform its magic with TCP connections. > I was about to say that we use it over UDP, but... we don't. We have a small number of clients, maybe ten(?) that use the VPN for remote administration. UDP is recommended, references[1] are easy to google. Why we're running it over TCP I don't know. I must have had a good reason =) It performs fine anyway, but now I'm considering flipping it to UDP to see what happens. At least I'll be in the office when it breaks. [1] http://sites.inka.de/sites/bigred/devel/tcp-tcp.html