Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 10:37:22 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kame ipsec vs. openbsd ipsec Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0204031036550.26496-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <2c1d01c1db3b$460c7720$52557f42@errno.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
have you asked the KAME people if they have plans to do such suppport themselves? On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Sam Leffler wrote: > I'm slogging through the KAME IPsec code looking at adding support for > crypto hardware (and NICs that do onboard IPSEC processing). The OpenBSD > IPsec implementation already has this and doing something similar to what > OpenBSD has done requires restructuring large parts of the KAME code in a > similar way. (It's also likely to have repercussions throughout the rest of > the inet code.) So it seems I can either muck with the KAME code or > integrate the OpenBSD code instead. Both options are a lot of work so I > thought I'd solicit some feedback first. > > 1. Has anyone else seriously looked at doing this? > 2. Has anyone compared the OpenBSD and KAME implementations and understand > their relative strengths? (e.g. is there some reason to work with KAME other > than it's already in the system) > > I found an old port of the OpenBSD code to FreeBSD but that was abandoned. > > Sam > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0204031036550.26496-100000>