Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:24:07 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: VANHULLEBUS Yvan <vanhu@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Giulio Ferro <auryn@zirakzigil.org> Subject: Re: NATT patch on current Message-ID: <20090110102213.Y45399@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <20090110100357.GB2718@zeninc.net> References: <49685F15.7080605@zirakzigil.org> <20090110100357.GB2718@zeninc.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote: Hi, > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 09:40:53AM +0100, Giulio Ferro wrote: >> I just wanted to report that the nat-traversal patch on HEAD 2008-03-19 >> fails to apply cleanly. >> The problem is in the file ipsec.c lines 1847, 1870 >> >> Any news for the natt integration in CURRENT? > > Thanks for the report. > I'm currently working on cleaning the PFKey part of the patch > (available on Perforce if you're interested, and I hope our tests to > be ok in a few days, so I'll send kernel+userland patch for public > test/review), so I don't use anymore the public version of the patch > for TRUNK. > > I'll be mostly AFK for the next 2-3 days, but I'll try to find quickly > some time to update the public patch soon. There is more to the patch and current: it failes in in_pcb.h now as well -- there is a 0x2000 (or 0x1000) that is officially used now. I wondered if rrs' generic udp tunnel hack would apply to this as well but I haven't looked at the code yet. /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb The greatest risk is not taking one.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090110102213.Y45399>