From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 14:32:34 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 A50D616A40F for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:32:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vanhu@zeninc.net) Received: from leia.fdn.fr (ns0.fdn.org [80.67.169.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 062E243D4C for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:32:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vanhu@zeninc.net) Received: from smtp.zeninc.net (reverse-25.fdn.fr [80.67.176.25]) by leia.fdn.fr (8.13.3/8.13.3/FDN) with ESMTP id k9DEW7qr015263; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:32:31 +0200 Received: by smtp.zeninc.net (smtpd, from userid 1000) id 0E2F73F17; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:32:02 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:32:01 +0200 From: VANHULLEBUS Yvan To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20061013143201.GA21926@zen.inc> References: <25685948.1160744185756.JavaMail.root@web03sl> <20061013130256.GA10192@zen.inc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: All mail clients suck. This one just sucks less. Cc: Sam Wun Subject: Re: patch for IPSEC_NAT_T 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: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:32:34 -0000 On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 12:27:22AM +1000, Sam Wun wrote: > in the kernel config file, what if I only define options IPSEC_NAT_T without > defining FAST_IPSEC? > I m not familiar with FAST_IPSEC, if I compile IPSEC_NAT_T with or without > FAST_IPSEC, what s that going to affect my current IPSEC configuration and > connection? Patch works for both IPSEC and FAST_IPSEC. So if you have one of them activated, you'll have NAT-T support. I don't know what will happen if you define IPSEC_NAT_T, but not IPSEC / FAST_IPSEC, guess it will generate the same thing as if you didn' define IPSEC_NAT_T. Yvan. -- NETASQ http://www.netasq.com