1. 25 Jan, 2016 2 commits
  2. 21 Jan, 2016 1 commit
  3. 20 Jan, 2016 2 commits
  4. 13 Jan, 2016 1 commit
  5. 30 Dec, 2015 1 commit
  6. 28 Dec, 2015 1 commit
  7. 14 Aug, 2015 1 commit
  8. 09 Jul, 2015 2 commits
  9. 08 Jul, 2015 1 commit
  10. 10 Jun, 2015 1 commit
  11. 27 Apr, 2015 1 commit
  12. 14 Apr, 2015 2 commits
  13. 10 Apr, 2015 1 commit
  14. 09 Apr, 2015 1 commit
  15. 08 Apr, 2015 3 commits
  16. 03 Apr, 2015 1 commit
  17. 07 Mar, 2015 3 commits
  18. 06 Mar, 2015 6 commits
  19. 25 Feb, 2015 1 commit
  20. 24 Feb, 2015 4 commits
  21. 19 Feb, 2015 1 commit
  22. 13 Feb, 2015 1 commit
  23. 02 Feb, 2015 2 commits
    • Julien Muchembled's avatar
      Limit number of client tunnels if NAT is not configured properly · 58204ee8
      Julien Muchembled authored
      If too many nodes create client tunnels without serving any, working servers
      saturate and the network collapses.
      58204ee8
    • Julien Muchembled's avatar
      UPnP: randomize external port · 3a9e668c
      Julien Muchembled authored
      Some routers are so broken that UPnP NAT don't report ConflictInMappingEntry
      when redirecting the same port several times.
      
      Here is for example what we had with a Numericable Box (France):
      
      0 (1024, 'TCP', ('192.168.0.29', 1194), 're6stnet openvpn server (1194/tcp)', '1', '', 0)
      1 (1024, 'TCP', ('192.168.0.16', 1194), 're6stnet openvpn server (1194/tcp)', '1', '', 0)
      2 (1024, 'TCP', ('192.168.0.33', 1194), 're6stnet openvpn server (1194/tcp)', '1', '', 0)
      3 (1024, 'TCP', ('192.168.0.20', 1194), 're6stnet openvpn server (1194/tcp)', '1', '', 0)
      ('192.168.0.29', 1194, 're6stnet openvpn server (1194/tcp)', True, 0)
      
      Obviously, this can't work.
      
      It seems that this router also accepts a limited number of NAT rules, far less
      than we'd like, so even if there's still a probability of conflict with this
      commit, it will be good enough for our use.
      3a9e668c