From: sam <sa...@hg...> - 2004-06-15 04:56:40
|
Adam Pavelec wrote: > James Yonan said the following on 6/14/2004 10:31 PM: > >> The "TLS handshake failed" condition is very general and could simply >> mean >> that there's no OpenVPN running on the other side of the connection, or >> there's a link failure. >> >> If the sample certs provided work but your own certs don't, then I would >> question whether or not your own certs were generated correctly. >> >> If the sample certs don't work, then it may just be a network >> connection issue. >> >> > > I'm getting real close here. The TLS handshake is now successful with > beta5. However, when the client's connection is initiated, a bunch of: > > Mon Jun 14 23:38:43 2004 TLS Error: Unknown data channel key ID or IP > address re > ceived from ip.address.of.server:port: 0 (see FAQ for more info on > this error) > I get this message too, I added ping-restart 20 in the server, but that seems not taken any effective to solve this issue. added "push ping-restart 20" to the client will cause client restart every 20 seconds, which is very bad when you see connection on and off every 20 secondes on windows. I think the best way to solve this issue is use tcp-mode server. With --mode server on tap, I have trouble to make it working. By the way, since tun is more scalable than tap, I tried to run --mode server on tun to provide multi clients connection on a single port, but I was not successful. Does anyone try this config? that is --mode server with tcp on tun for multiple clients connection? Sam. > ...messages are displayed; but it is sporadic -- it only happens ~50% > of the time. The FAQ seems to imply that this is a server-only > message, but in my case, it's only appearing on the client. > > Q: Is is mandatory that each client use unique certificate in server > mode? > > FYI, when installing beta5 on an additional client, the installer > reported that "An error occurred installing the TAP-Win32 device > driver." <http://pavelec.net/s/?PBNSW8MS>, although everything seemed > to work fine afterwards. The machine was rebooted after uninstalling > beta4, and after installing beta5. > > -Adam > |