On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 02:38:36PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote: > On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 02:10:46PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > > > > What is the added value of etherpuppet over existing tools, such as > > > openvpn, tinc, gvpe, vde2? If there is none, or if the functionality > > > that is missing from etherpuppet can be easily integrated with one of > > > the existing tools, then you should tell upstream that it would be > > > better to invest time and energy in one of the other solutions. > > > > Well, etherpuppet is not really something to use as a simple vpn. You > > use it to really clone (including low level stuff) the interface on the > > remote side. > > Ok, I see now that only one side of the etherpuppet tunnel uses a > tun/tap device, the other side copies everything to/from a real Ethernet > interface. > > Still, the other tools I mentioned can all handle Ethernet frames. In > fact, tinc can be compiled to connect to a real Ethernet interface > instead of a tun/tap device, so it might already have the capability to > do what etherpuppet does. The advantage of these tools is that they can > provide encryption, and some of them can connect more than two endpoints > together. > > The reason I urge you to consider having upstream merge his > functionality with one of the others is that otherwise there is yet > another tunnel tool out there.
etherpuppet doesn't sound like a tunnel or VPN tool at all - it seems to be a mirroring tool for diagnostic purposes. I'm confused about how TUN/TAP are involved though. If I'm routing packets between two Ethernet interfaces, can I have them copied to a third? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
