Can be possible to add Gert Döring patch for ipv6 payloads http://www.greenie.net/ipv6/openvpn.html on ipv4 tunnels to openvpn ebuild? I've slightly modified openvpn-2.1.2 ebuild to include a patch that merges the ipv6 patch already present in the ebuild (that is for ipv6 tunnel itself) and Gert patch. It's tested only because I use it on a regular basis, but if this can be useful I can attach the files. let me know. Reproducible: Always
Hi, this feature request has been brought to my attention. I just want to mention that I'm happy to help with any questions that might arise regarding patch conflicts etc. (and I'm a gentoo user, so I can test the build). I'm not the gentoo maintainer, though, just to avoid confusion here :-) gert
Hi Gert, nice to see you on this bug:) Basically I'm using your patch applied to latest gentoo ebuild for openvpn that already has jjo ipv6 patch. I'll post here my modification that are just a quick hack to allow me to use my laptop with ipv6, as I said I've not tested deeply the side effects of the merge, but maybe this can be useful so I post here the ebuild and the merged patch.
Created attachment 246336 [details] Ebuild for cumulative ipv6 patch
Created attachment 246337 [details, diff] cumulative ipv6 patch
Do I understand this right, this patch is "ipv6 payload + ipv6 transport" merged into one big "IPv6 patch" (it certainly looks like it :-) ). From a cursory glance, it looks good to me (the only real conflict is in mroute.c, and you sorted that out).
Thanks for the review. I'll probably extend the meaning of the ipv6 use flag to incorporate the merged transport + payload patch in 2.1.2-r1, soon.
(In reply to comment #5) > Do I understand this right, this patch is "ipv6 payload + ipv6 transport" > merged into one big "IPv6 patch" (it certainly looks like it :-) ). > Yes, well put, it is exactly as you said :) > From a cursory glance, it looks good to me (the only real conflict is in > mroute.c, and you sorted that out). > Thanks for looking at it!
Hi, I just stumbled over this bug and realized that nothing has happened for quite some time. How are chances that an OpenVPN version with Gert's patch applied will be made available? Until now I use 2.1.0-r1 which I patched manually (That was not easy for me since I'm not a programmer but had to fix two files manually!). Thanks, Martin
Errr, 5 days doesn't qualify as quite some time. I'll get to it sometime soon, but I won't make promises.
Whoops, I read the date the wrong way :/ I guess I've had too much contact with people writing YYYY-DD-MM recently... Sorry, Martin
Hi, in the meantime openvpn 2.1.3 has been jumped into portage-tree, so I adapted the patch to that version. Only some minor line changes happened. Additionally the patches of install-win32/settings.in (change of release-date) didn't match, but I'm pretty sure that this change can silently ignored. If not, the PRODUCT_TAP_RELDATE is now defined in win/settings.in, feel free to change it there if this is really needed ;-) Anyways, find attached the ebuild (2.1.3-r1) and the combined patch for 2.1.3. BR Jens
Created attachment 248921 [details] Ebuild for openvpn-2.1.3 with combined ipv6 patch
Created attachment 248923 [details, diff] The patch for openvpn 2.1.3
(In reply to comment #11) > Hi, > > in the meantime openvpn 2.1.3 has been jumped into portage-tree, so I adapted > the patch to that version. Works just fine, thanks.
(In reply to comment #9) > Errr, 5 days doesn't qualify as quite some time. I'll get to it sometime soon, > but I won't make promises. > How about 2 month? ... does this qualify for "quite some time" ? *scnr* Is there any perspective to get this patch into portage ... well ... maybe until end of this year? BR Jens
Created attachment 257218 [details] Ebuild for openvpn-2.1.4 including the combined IPv6-Patch (the one from 2.1.3 works without modifications) No that openvpn 2.1.4 entered into portage, again without the IPv6-Payload-Patch, I changed that ebuild to use the combined patch (as already attached for 2.1.3) instead of the originally included patch. The ported combined-patch we submitted for 2.1.3 works for 2.1.4 without modification, so I did refer to that one instead of renaming it. Feel free to rename it when (if ever?) pushing that into official portage-tree. BR Jens Jens
@Fabio: Maybe you want to change summary of this report to reflect that we already arrived on 2.1.4 with proposing this patch and no longer on 2.1.2 ... I don't have sufficient permissions for it as you filed this report initially ;-) BR Jens
Done :)
*** Bug 357923 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
A few more months have passed, 2.1.4 is now stable, and this patch is still nowhere to be seen. Please, Dirkjan, the work is all done for you, commit this to the tree (in an ~arch -r1 if you prefer to be safe).
Created attachment 265273 [details, diff] Documentatio and cleanup patch to the ebuild This patch adds some IPv6 documentation to /usr/share/doc/openvpn-2.1.4 and fixes the einfo at the end (the IPv6 transport patch is the one from JuanJo Ciarlante and Gert Doering's one is the IPv6 payload patch).
Sorry this has taken so long to get to. I've now put 2.2.0 in the tree and included support for the latest IPv6-payload patch from Gert. Please review and file new bugs if anything's failing.
(In reply to comment #22) > Sorry this has taken so long to get to. I've now put 2.2.0 in the tree and > included support for the latest IPv6-payload patch from Gert. Please review and > file new bugs if anything's failing. Hi Dirkjan Ochtman, If I understand correctly, the patch from Gert only contains *IPv6 Payload* patch, not the combination of jjo's **IPv6 Transport** patch. Quote from Gert's website: OpenVPN v2.1 has no support for transporting VPN packets over IPv6 transport (``IPv4, IPv6 or Ethernet inside, IPv6 outside'') either, but there are other people already working on this, so I did not touch this field. By check Gert's patch I can confirm that the options added by jjo ( --proto udp6 and so on ) was not included in Gert's patch. IPv6 Payload patch allows "IPv4-inside-IPv6" connection, which gives IPv6-only servers the ability to access IPv4 network. IPv6 Transport patch allows "IPv6-inside-IPv4", which gives IPv4-only servers the ability to access to IPv6 network. Please check if this is really a regression.
Hmm, you might be right. On the other hand, I couldn't extract a useful working patch (e.g. something that applied using epatch) from jjo's github repo. Maybe someone else could help out with that?
Did you red our thread completely? The patches supplied by Fabio and me are merges of Gerts and JJO's patch! They support bot Transport and Payload of V6! BR Jens
(In reply to comment #25) > Did you red our thread completely? The patches supplied by Fabio and me are > merges of Gerts and JJO's patch! They support bot Transport and Payload of V6! > > BR > Jens Hi Jens Ott, There maybe some mistake. The patch used in ebuild file is: http://www.greenie.net/ipv6/openvpn-${IPV6_PAYLOAD_VERSION}.patch.gz Which obviously doesn't contain jjo's patch.
OK, that makes no big sense ... maybe you should use the patch provided as attachment of this bugreport then. That's way we did the merge!
(In reply to comment #27) > OK, that makes no big sense ... maybe you should use the patch provided as > attachment of this bugreport then. That's way we did the merge! Hi Jens Ott, I found the latest openvpn ebuild (2.2.0-r1) in portage tree contains only the IPv6 payload patch, so I'm trying to report a bug report and then I found this issue. Does this mean I need to open another issue?
No, let's address it here. Guys, can you come up with a new combined patch, for 2.2.0, that has both the patches and provides proper credits to respective authors of the patches?
Created attachment 271763 [details, diff] small patch to fix conflict between transport/payload patch
Created attachment 271765 [details] Modified OpenVPN ebuild
Use http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=271763 to patch the "IPv6 transport patch" first, then apply "IPv6 payload patch" and "IPv6 transport patch" in order. The modified ebuild: http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=271765 This is ugly but it works.
We're not going to do anymore than we already have; we'll wait for 2.3, which has this support in upstream.
