[WLANware] Bug with S05nvram and WL-HDD

[Florian E. Teply]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Lorenz Schori wrote:
> 
> Am 08.10.2006 um 20:51 schrieb Florian E. Teply:

>> Sven-Ola Tuecke wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> as a post-scriptum: a couple of feature requests have reached me
>>> recently
>>> regarding an easy-to-use Private-to-Private tunneling pack. I would
>>> appreciate contributions, especial if they add an admin/privtunnel
>>> page. One
>>> language enough, I will convert to multilang.
>>>
>> Sounds good to me. I myself was already thinking about that matter as
>> well.
>> After some background reading i'd go for cipe as well as it is
>> considerably lightweight in terms of size and speed. In addition to that
>> it seems to be well-tested and stable as some solid rock. Maybe one
>> should do some testing on the behaviour on nat'ted links. As a plus cipe
>> seems to be IPv6-ready which i'm not too sure of with the other options
>> mentioned. Not that we're going IPv6-only tomorrow, but this should at
>> least be kept in memory.
> 
> cipe does not seem to run on non linux/windows systems, neither it seems
> to be updatet at least for the last two years... appart from the
> dependency on openssl tinc looks very promising to me. possibly it would
> be feasable to port it to matrixssl.
> 
Well, this surely is something to be discussed. According to the OS
categorization on the project page at sourceforge, cipe runs on
virtually every POSIX system. Apart from that, i believe that porting
cipe to any POSIX-compliant OS (say one of the various BSDs) should be
straightforward. I could be wrong there as i'm not the programmer sort
of guy. But, as far as i know, the set of OSes described by the pattern
"POSIX and Windows" is the same as the platforms OLSR is running on.
Clearly, there is no point in trying to port it to VMS or MacOS up to
version 9.2, but, heck, OLSR isn't running on these platforms anyways.
I myself would consider cipe sort of finished, one could clearly
disagree on that point. Again, i don't have too much knowledge on this.
The plus here is, that according to Sven-Ola .ipk's are already available.

On the other hand, tinc+matrixssl could be another good option. i guess
we can agree on that this needs some more research.

Cheers,
Florian

- --
Langeweile? Lust auf ein fesselndes Spiel?
- -> Das MorgenGrauen erwartet Dich!!
http://mg.mud.de/newweb oder
http://telnet.morgengrauen.info
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFKVp+gyo72NEMX5sRAo20AKCH/cAYrBe2ZFGQD7ss8ZjBy4QlIACgjYvc
dPgfCJnQb1vAPoedCmkUCUQ=
=bwkE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----