From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 4 18:16:10 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB86216A4E5 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:16:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sullrich@gmail.com) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.170]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 119D243D55 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:16:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sullrich@gmail.com) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m2so1852157uge for ; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:16:08 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=U0memvQWmaX5gRjuMtIHjnKiCprSw+5vXiTs4oms0/PI/d1zxRdtsrtaKhCVrG/GlAuGwfRwmqIpYmTdwW8ioZefGVG0Mm+2EoTRiuKocYkulK1+ezsUznyF48aOX1MSFZ3VrVddBw6hC+qgSp1CGvS2Fe29rAN2Ogy15tv0hI0= Received: by 10.66.224.3 with SMTP id w3mr3124317ugg; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:16:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.67.28.14 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Sep 2006 11:16:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 14:16:08 -0400 From: "Scott Ullrich" To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" In-Reply-To: <20060904180515.V44392@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060905022120.19c6d62d.nork@FreeBSD.org> <20060904172700.W44392@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <20060904175127.F44392@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <20060904180515.V44392@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Where is IPSec NAT-T support? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 18:16:11 -0000 On 9/4/06, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > the patch only support kame ipsec. I guess that's the problem. Could > you try it building with kame ipsec instead of fast_ipsec and let us > know if that worked? That may work okay but then would I loose HIFN support, etc? Scott