amcnabb at mcnabbs.org
Tue Jul 5 15:25:29 MDT 2005
Some of you may be sick of this thread, but I have found it extremely
insightful. Thanks to everyone who has participated.
As far as tun vs. tap is concerned, I've been a little biased towards
tun because my only application of OpenVPN so far has been in an
environment where tun is really the only way to go.
We have three separate subnets which are connected together by an
OpenVPN network. The main thing that impressed me with OpenVPN is that
it can route everything properly even if the various routers have
dynamic VPN IP addresses. The only thing I have to specify in the
configuration is that client A is a router for subnet A, client B for
subnet B, and so on. The IP address assigned to client A is irrelevent.
I thought that that was very cool.
Thanks to everyone's input, when I set up my wireless network, I'll
probably use tap for it. However, I still have a question about
efficiency. I can see, from the various points that have been made,
that tap is probably easier to configure for a many-clients network.
However, Hans also said that it tap can be faster than tun. I have a
hard time seeing that, since tun would avoid ARP packets and other such
chatty packets which are commonly found on a subnet. Why would tap be
faster than tun? Are there other factors?
PGP Fingerprint: 8A17 B57C 6879 1863 DE55 8012 AB4D 6098 8826 6868
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20050705/0a4e9518/attachment.bin
More information about the PLUG