From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Feb  3 07:53:12 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 0FD2216A4CE; Tue,  3 Feb 2004 07:53:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gvr.gvr.org (gvr-gw.gvr.org [80.126.103.228])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id B909243D3F; Tue,  3 Feb 2004 07:53:10 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from guido@gvr.org)
Received: by gvr.gvr.org (Postfix, from userid 657)
	id DC4C92B; Tue,  3 Feb 2004 16:53:09 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 16:53:09 +0100
From: Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.org>
To: "Crist J. Clark" <cjc@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20040203155309.GA22676@gvr.gvr.org>
References: <1074650025.701.82.camel@itouch-1011.prv.au.itouchnet.net>
	<20040122110929.GA767@gvr.gvr.org>
	<20040203070435.GB46486@blossom.cjclark.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040203070435.GB46486@blossom.cjclark.org>
cc: Andrew Thomson <andrewjt@applecomm.net>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ipsec changes in 5.2R
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:53:12 -0000

On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:04:36PM -0800, Crist J. Clark wrote:
> > I have seen the same. Somehow it looks like ISAKMP traffic, which used to
> > go around the ipsec policy, is now included. The only workaround I know
> > of is to replace "require" with "use".
> 
> A little late on this, but FAST_IPSEC rather than KAME IPsec will fix
> the problem.

Thanks! That helped!

-Guido