Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:21:47 -0800 From: "Crist J. Clark" <cristjc@comcast.net> To: Andrew Thomson <andrewjt@applecomm.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipsec changes in 5.2R Message-ID: <20040204212147.GA32947@blossom.cjclark.org> In-Reply-To: <1075893572.29017.1.camel@oblivion> References: <1074650025.701.82.camel@itouch-1011.prv.au.itouchnet.net> <20040122110929.GA767@gvr.gvr.org> <20040203070435.GB46486@blossom.cjclark.org> <20040203155309.GA22676@gvr.gvr.org> <1075893572.29017.1.camel@oblivion>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 10:19:33PM +1100, Andrew Thomson wrote:
> Thanks, that worked a treat for me too.. everything back to normal!
>
> So what's the go with this fast_ipsec business. Is this going to be the
> main implementation for Freebsd?
I believe the main reason FAST_IPSEC came to be is support for crypto
hardware.
However, FAST_IPSEC cannot replace KAME IPsec. FAST_IPSEC is IPv4-only
whereas KAME is IPv6 with its required IPsec abilities "back-ported"
into the IPv4 stack.
It would be really, really nice to get this bug out of KAME IPsec
before 5.2.1, but if 5.2 didn't wait...
> On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 16:53 +0100, Guido van Rooij wrote:
> > 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
--
Crist J. Clark | cjclark@alum.mit.edu
| cjclark@jhu.edu
http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ | cjc@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040204212147.GA32947>