Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

REQUEST: Multiple VPN Sources Active #488

Open
GitPuffy opened this issue Jan 29, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

REQUEST: Multiple VPN Sources Active #488

GitPuffy opened this issue Jan 29, 2024 · 3 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@GitPuffy
Copy link

GitPuffy commented Jan 29, 2024

I have a feature request, to allow the app to have multiple VPN connections active at one time. My reasoning is the following.

I have two connections on that uses Wireguard and one that uses OpenVPN to two different VPN “servers.”

I would like to have one connection setup as the typical “Exclude” on-demand policy. The other I would like to have set as an “Include” on-demand policy.

I have been in scenarios where some networks use deep packet investigation and block my Wireguard VPN connection. I then manually stop that VPN connection in Passepeartout and manually turn on my OpenVPN connection (which is configured on TCP port 443) and have been able to connect my VPN that way. It would be nice if I could have a configuration of a known network that is configured as an Include policy on my OpenVPN configuration in Passepartout I would then add those networks that block the Wireguard VPN to my OpenVPN include.

I tried to set this up but when I went to enable the “second” connection, the include connection, my Wireguard VPN entry was set to disabled.

I hope I was able to explain my request and scenario in logical way. Thank you for considering this.

@GitPuffy GitPuffy added the bug Something isn't working label Jan 29, 2024
@keeshux keeshux added enhancement New feature or request and removed bug Something isn't working labels Feb 3, 2024
@keeshux
Copy link
Member

keeshux commented Feb 3, 2024

If this is a feature request, then why mark it as a bug? :-)

By the way, it's the expected OS behavior and I'm afraid there's no workaround. Also a duplicate of #218. Nevertheless, I'll keep this one open because recently I think I've come up with a potential solution.

Thanks for the reminder, it'd actually be a great feature.

@GitPuffy
Copy link
Author

GitPuffy commented Feb 5, 2024

Sorry about marking a feature request as a bug. Opps.

Great to hear that you may have a solution for this request. If you would like a tester for it please reach out.

Thank you

@juev
Copy link

juev commented Feb 6, 2024

A very interesting change, it would be great if it were possible to implement such a thing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants