Wireless Masochism

Hans Fugal hans at fugal.net
Tue Jul 5 15:27:17 MDT 2005


On Tue,  5 Jul 2005 at 15:11 -0600, Andrew McNabb wrote:
> Once again, it comes down to whether you're doing tun or tap.  All of
> your comments make sense when they apply to tap, but they are impossible
> to understand by someone who is thinking in tun mode.  With IP over VPN,
> my comment about OpenVPN having nothing to do with DHCP still stands.


> In the beginning, I was objecting to the blanket statement that OpenVPN
> is duplicating the work of DHCP.  You have made it clear, in my opinion,
> that this is true in tap (ethernet bridging), but in tun, which works
> ideally for my network architecture, DHCP is entirely inappropriate (at
> least in this architecture).

I see from these statements and others that I've cut that you still
don't see how DHCP might fit in a tun environment. There's two reasons I
can think of for this: it is presently impossible and you don't see the
benefit. But I assure you it is both technically possible in the future
and not entirely an insane thing to do.

But what I'd like to point out, as we are submitting our closing
arguments now, is that the thrust of my comments has been that I use tap
for the very reason that you can use DHCP over tap, because the added
value of DHCP over the not-quite DHCP features of OpenVPN means that
much to me. This is true whether OpenVPN is emulating a subset of DHCP
or simply doing something that DHCP also does, which is of course an
academic point at best.

> Once again, it comes down to using the right tool for the right job.
> 
> The main point I would like to leave is that DHCP isn't automatically
> the right tool for automatic network configuration in every situation. 
> In the case of IP tunneling, it is important to remember that setting up
> dynamic IP addresses isn't automatically the same thing as setting up a
> DHCP server.

You don't need the full TCP/IP stack if you only need to do UDP.

-- 
 .O.  Hans Fugal            | De gustibus non disputandum est.
 ..O  http://hans.fugal.net | Debian, vim, mutt, ruby, text, gpg
 OOO                        | WindowMaker, gaim, UTF-8, RISC, JS Bach
---------------------------------------------------------------------
GnuPG Fingerprint: 6940 87C5 6610 567F 1E95  CB5E FC98 E8CD E0AA D460
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20050705/563e975c/attachment.bin 


More information about the PLUG mailing list