Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 15:33:41 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> Cc: FreeBSD current mailing list <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: IPSec + 5.2.current Problem Message-ID: <20040809153341.24963cfd@Magellan.Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0408091314260.1709@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <200408080622.i786Mnhe017474@www1.pochta.ru> <20040808132524.GB1033@mehnert.org> <20040808155623.2fa6fb4b@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <20040809112700.GB659@mehnert.org> <20040809150754.13ca108a@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <Pine.BSF.4.53.0408091314260.1709@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:21:01 +0000 (UTC)
"Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> wrote:
> > > I also had some problems with IPSEC and IPSEC_ESP, changing require
> > > to use in the policies fixed that. With require racoon was not able
> > > to initiate phase 1, because all non esp traffic was dropped.
>
> whyever I hadn't seen this posting.
Did you noticed Message-Id:
<20040805223027.7df0732b@Magellan.Leidinger.net> on -current?
> > I think this is a datapoint... I use a "require" policy too. ATM I can't
> > test with "use" instead.
>
> but this problem had been fixed months ago for IPSEC.
Any other idea for the cause of the observed behavior?
Bye,
Alexander.
--
I'm available to get hired (preferred in .lu).
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040809153341.24963cfd>