Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:06:19 -0400 From: "George V. Neville-Neil" <gnn@neville-neil.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, mgrooms@shrew.net, brooks@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD NAT-T patch integration Message-ID: <m24p7edij8.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> In-Reply-To: <4863F479.8010206@elischer.org> References: <48ca67dd60c19f94b4f21bbe88854da7@localhost> <86c7b60b19e63e9188701611ac0f6f17@localhost> <4863F479.8010206@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:56:41 -0700, julian wrote: > > I'm planning on committing it unless someone can provide a reason not > to, as I've seen it working, needed it, and have not seen any bad > byproducts. > I'd be interested to know how you tested it. NAT-T and IPsec are non-trivial protocols/subsystems that can have far reaching impacts on the network stack. Also, are you planning to maintain it after committing it? The biggest problem with NAT-T hasn't been the code, it's been that the author, who is doing a great job on the code, has been too busy to maintain it anywhere but at work. That is not a slam on the person or the code, I have the highest respect for both, but it reflects and important reality of the situation. Unless you're stepping up to maintain it as well as commit it I think it should not be committed. I know the Bjoern has been working hard to pick up the IPsec stuff in his free time, and I value his input on this subject quite a bit. Best, George
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m24p7edij8.wl%gnn>