Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 22:36:51 +0100 From: Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.org> To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipsec changes in 5.2R Message-ID: <20040204213651.GA43137@gvr.gvr.org> In-Reply-To: <20040204212147.GA32947@blossom.cjclark.org> 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> <20040204212147.GA32947@blossom.cjclark.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 01:21:47PM -0800, Crist J. Clark wrote: > 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... True. Is KAME aware of this problem or is it FBSD specific? -Guido
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040204213651.GA43137>