Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:55:45 +0000 From: Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com> To: Eric Masson <e-masson@kisoft-services.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPSEC documentation Message-ID: <20051228155545.GA7166@uk.tiscali.com> In-Reply-To: <86lky5p7ik.fsf@srvbsdnanssv.interne.kisoft-services.com> References: <20051228143817.GA6898@uk.tiscali.com> <86lky5p7ik.fsf@srvbsdnanssv.interne.kisoft-services.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 04:26:43PM +0100, Eric Masson wrote: > gif/gre tunnels and ipsec transport mode are quite convenient when > associated with dynamic routing protocols. OK, I'll buy gif + IPSEC transport mode as an option. [Although in that case, perhaps what you want is an external IPSEC tunnel mode implementation which attaches to a 'tun' device. That's yet another category which I hadn't even considered] I still think that gif + IPSEC tunnel mode (as currently documented) is not a good approach, especially if it's the *only* mode of operation to be documented and hence implicitly recommended as the 'right' way to do it.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051228155545.GA7166>