<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

> On a different note, one thing that would *really* help in this case
> would
> be being able to have one cipe daemon handle many tunnels. I know there
> has been talk about this but I have no idea what is involved.

That would add an extra management-tier to cipe. What I really like about cipe
is it's compactness. Making it a multi-connection-server seems to me limiting
it's strength.
It would surely make steady-state configurations easier to handle.

> Another interesting possibility would be to hack the cipe daemon so that
> instead of reading files, it read it's configuration out of a database.
> If
> your database also kept track of process IDs you could easily keep track
> of which ones are still running and which arn't. Your CIPE SuperServer
> would then do something like:

That's just what cipic, being a kind of wrapper, adds to cipe.

Thank you for your points.

Christian Lademann <cal,AT,zls,DOT,de>

<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]