From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 5 08:45:12 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 6DEFE16A4DA for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 08:45:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net) Received: from transport.cksoft.de (transport.cksoft.de [62.111.66.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC8343D49 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 08:45:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net) Received: from transport.cksoft.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by transport.cksoft.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2BF61FFDD6 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:45:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: by transport.cksoft.de (Postfix, from userid 66) id 58CFC1FFDD4; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:45:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net (maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net [10.111.66.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.int.zabbadoz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 736664448D6 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 08:43:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 08:43:06 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" X-X-Sender: bz@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060905084243.U44392@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <20060905022120.19c6d62d.nork@FreeBSD.org> <20060904172700.W44392@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <20060904175127.F44392@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <20060904180515.V44392@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS cksoft-s20020300-20031204bz on transport.cksoft.de 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: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 08:45:12 -0000 On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Scott Ullrich wrote: > 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? for IPSec. -- Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT