References: <20180608052017.6696-1-a@...2181...> <20180613141213.5962-1-a@...2181...> <20180620155301.GY57262@...1296...> <20180622094635.GI57262@...1296...> <20180622182709.GO57262@...1296...> <8117ab50-c3d1-2210-6665-9ea86b7110ac@...2181...> From: Antonio Quartulli Message-ID: <5fe13344-8e3c-3283-3217-c64f4ef234c5@...2181...> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 11:13:07 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="C8IB94osrYfG8pASOqqAKwsWng52lNvcJ" Subject: Re: [Openvpn-devel] [PATCH v3 2/8] windows: properly configure TAP driver when no IPv4 is configured List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Selva Nair Cc: Gert Doering , openvpn-devel This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --C8IB94osrYfG8pASOqqAKwsWng52lNvcJ Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="e50yaoCxQnihsMuGxM4ZxMYe0G9i8Kjli"; protected-headers="v1" From: Antonio Quartulli To: Selva Nair Cc: Gert Doering , openvpn-devel Message-ID: <5fe13344-8e3c-3283-3217-c64f4ef234c5@...2181...> Subject: Re: [Openvpn-devel] [PATCH v3 2/8] windows: properly configure TAP driver when no IPv4 is configured References: <20180608052017.6696-1-a@...2181...> <20180613141213.5962-1-a@...2181...> <20180620155301.GY57262@...1296...> <20180622094635.GI57262@...1296...> <20180622182709.GO57262@...1296...> <8117ab50-c3d1-2210-6665-9ea86b7110ac@...2181...> In-Reply-To: --e50yaoCxQnihsMuGxM4ZxMYe0G9i8Kjli Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On 23/06/18 11:09, Selva Nair wrote: >> My guts say that the issue might be related to "gateway-redirect", >> because only 8/8 makes sure that no logic is activated for IPv4 and >> without that patch there might be some IPv4 route being installed >> nonetheless. >=20 > Very likely. It would be nice to find the on-link route that triggers tha= t code > path to ensure it doesn't cause any other issues. My server was on the same LAN (connecting via v4) as the client - should that be considered on-link? maybe this is what triggers that code path. >=20 > But not very critical as the assert is fixed and route errors are not FAT= AL. >=20 If you like the argv patch v2, would you mind giving your blessing? :-) Thanks! Cheers, >=20 --=20 Antonio Quartulli --e50yaoCxQnihsMuGxM4ZxMYe0G9i8Kjli-- --C8IB94osrYfG8pASOqqAKwsWng52lNvcJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEERdCuyFSHc3WdqS4EB6U8WA7yzXQFAlstusMACgkQB6U8WA7y zXTc8Q//TwKhWQwrjpn0aJCPBqJ/3lJZkCxWxRBu0ex7ODtOuJJk//XXKP+yavQe s5+xkqYh5MGLNZbWTtrW0ic6kcYc/JDyJjOS81Og6dpXIU7K8iCGN2PF5AIj5xe/ nFA5/7pwlSSmdLbTc48FjA9m2MgXQBhhiGNMbVvprVCA46p3k+BKFjhpTDe2pu6G lo4Nwb65gDYEAVs+BEvJIDOPo5g2GQf4pigEweP03jl4nCnxeEyRBmXPfYJJwKzo SiSZFnOF1dFGqeZLramjDeYlsGl4wdDrsNpnklqJkoJqsb8hFKCQk37kbsZu2T2k 4MgZOXxcTwdHTzBZ0VvyTMLrbnRMHi8OwReg+RlpWebffhiQl7lDF3HLFyYC7YTb JVBTI2hGCkFtTykEM+fgCDnK3fZRB++QcVhXvCMfi4N/dDA+eFLe9sTYw8OgEOdd WdQ10ExTqbqaGyDe4maNzWPuXcS7LIaTJaWXn/JGK45plxZKgogg2gCohBkCTEyt qmtL4GmV8blFcHlLvLdTLIzPqD+RA0eYgz/okACkpnDEuAdRtqevcpKBQLuntxpv 0vlazwvt2sMkEmGey+2AaIyDeG8GBIiWokATmTHqpaLg3Ez8qZGxxknSnt/Kd7bc MtS7UmaK88wRMsJTS++9j90gQhVZG5uwfIyAkBxwSp0JtM8U3is= =tKv1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --C8IB94osrYfG8pASOqqAKwsWng52lNvcJ--