Re: Vtund for Windows|
"Damion K. Wilson" <dkw,AT,rcm,DOT,bm>|
Sun, 8 Oct 2000 22:19:05 +0200|
Firstly, I think CIPE is just fine and consider it VERY stable. I liked it
so much that I both implemented the corporate VPN using it and I wrote the
Windows NT port as well.
That said, I think that VTun does have a number of features lacking in CIPE
and that a Windows port would be well received indeed. While I am not
willing to write the whole thing, the virtual network adapter driver used
by Cipe-Win32 is not dependent on CIPE. That is, the adapter driver should
be usable by any virtual network software. Right now I am addressing some
shortcomings of the existing driver pointed out by the CIPE and VTUN
communities that prevent acceptance of the driver for use as a generic
Win32 network tunnel.
I think that, once I implement CIPE-Win32 with the new driver (non-polling,
I/O based instead of polled shared memory), Work on the VTUN port should
proceed pretty easily, probably by one or two of the existing VTUN
developers, as no more kernel-mode code would have to be written.
Don't worry, though, I'm writing code for it right now !
Hope that helps,
Damion K. WilSON
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 10/7/00 at 10:12 AM alex wrote:
>I use CIPE and vtund (vtun.souceforge.net). Vtund is more stable instead
>CIPE and have more features , the problem is that don't work on Windows.
>My company in Florence, Italy can pay for this developed , you are
>interested in it??
>Please answer me ASAP.