From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 28 14:48:26 2003 Return-Path: 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 BAA3337B401 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 14:48:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03.attbi.com [204.127.202.63]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C3443F75 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 14:48:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from crist.clark@attbi.com) Received: from blossom.cjclark.org (12-234-159-107.client.attbi.com[12.234.159.107]) by attbi.com (sccrmhc03) with ESMTP id <2003052821482400300e296ce>; Wed, 28 May 2003 21:48:24 +0000 Received: from blossom.cjclark.org (localhost. [127.0.0.1]) by blossom.cjclark.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h4SLmNki004518 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 14:48:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from crist.clark@attbi.com) Received: (from cjc@localhost) by blossom.cjclark.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) id h4SLmMJU004517 for freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Wed, 28 May 2003 14:48:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: blossom.cjclark.org: cjc set sender to crist.clark@attbi.com using -f Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 14:48:22 -0700 From: "Crist J. Clark" To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030528214822.GB3907@blossom.cjclark.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-URL: http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ Subject: Merging Non-Back-Compatible setkey(8) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Crist J. Clark" List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 21:48:27 -0000 I sent a PR into the KAME guys a few weeks back about an issue with setkey(8). The issue is that setkey(8) refers to the NULL encryption algorithm by the rather misleading name, 'simple.' I'd hoped they'd patch it in a back-compatible way, so that 'simple' still would work, but they've just swapped 'simple' for 'null' in the code. So now I'm trying to decide what to do, stay close to the vendor and merge their change, add a hack that accepts both, or leave it for someone else to worry about when they next sync stuff with KAME. My personal lean is that 'simple,' now known as 'null,' should only really be used as a debugging tool so we wouldn't be breaking many, if any at all, existing installations. I should go ahead and merge it into -CURRENT and -STABLE (honoring any code freezes of course) as-is. So, my reason for writing is, is anyone aware of wide-spread use of the NULL encryption algorithm in confguration file that will get broken by such a change? -- Crist J. Clark | cjclark@alum.mit.edu | cjclark@jhu.edu http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ | cjc@freebsd.org