1. 08 Apr, 2015 1 commit
  2. 03 Apr, 2015 2 commits
  3. 27 Mar, 2015 1 commit
  4. 07 Mar, 2015 3 commits
  5. 06 Mar, 2015 6 commits
  6. 25 Feb, 2015 1 commit
  7. 24 Feb, 2015 5 commits
  8. 19 Feb, 2015 4 commits
  9. 13 Feb, 2015 1 commit
  10. 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
  11. 30 Dec, 2014 4 commits
  12. 26 Dec, 2014 3 commits
  13. 18 Dec, 2014 4 commits
  14. 17 Dec, 2014 3 commits