On Sun, 2005-03-06 21:22:09 +0100, martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> wrote in message <[🔎] 20050306202209.GA11900@cirrus.madduck.net>: > also sprach Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@lug-owl.de> [2005.03.06.2008 +0100]: > > It's either a system service, or a program started by an > > individual. Though, I don't know out of the head if an individual > > would need to have admin rights. > > An IPsec implementation needs kernel-level support to be able to > enforce policies. I would not be surprised if Windows allowed access > to the kernel to the normal user, but I tend to doubt it. OpenVPN != IPsec > > I don't know if other commercial "products" kill other company's > > "products", but technically, that's pure nonsense. > > See above; they do. Then these "products" should just go down into bitrot... > > A VPN endpoint is just an IP address, possibly with some routing > > information. You can have two ethernet cards in one machine, so > > you can have two VPN connections... > > But not two VPN implementations. :) My laptop, from time to time, does actually run several instances into OpenVPN tunnels. Maybe I'd also install a vpnc and connect to a Cisco concentrator... My guess is that it'll just work (tm) with vpnc, but not with Cisco's shitty in-kernel driver. MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481 _ O _ "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature