Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:45:07 +0200 From: "Oldach, Helge" <Helge.Oldach@atosorigin.com> To: "'Sam Leffler'" <sam@errno.com> Cc: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> Subject: RE: FAST_IPSEC bug fix Message-ID: <D2CFC58E0F8CB443B54BE72201E8916E94CBB3@dehhx005.hbg.de.int.atosorigin.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: Sam Leffler [mailto:sam@errno.com] > On Apr 24, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote: > > At 12:56 PM 24/04/2004, Sam Leffler wrote: > >> On Apr 24, 2004, at 9:03 AM, Oldach, Helge wrote: > >> > >>> Hi list, > >>> > >>> this is a month-old mail about the lack of a FAST_IPSEC feature > >>> compared to legacy IPSEC. Including a working patch. I haven't > >>> seen this being > >>> committed, or is it? Please also MFC to STABLE. > >> > >> The fix was not quite right for -current (where it needs to go in > >> first). I sent out the attached patch for testing but received no > >> feedback. Until I can get it tested and committed to -current it > >> won't be MFC'd. > > > > We dont run -current here, so I dont have anything to test it on. > > Also, due to the bugs in the driver with HiFn 7955, we have had to > > abandon FAST_IPSEC :( > > Running FAST IPSEC w/o h/w crypto is still faster than KAME > IPsec. See the results in my BSDCon paper. Yes, but still the net.key.preferred_oldsa issue hits, which is what this thread is about. FAST_IPSEC is great, but unfortuantely useless for me without this... Sorry for beating this topic again. Unfortunately, like Mike, I don't have a -current system around. Maybe someone with a -current box can test? Helge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D2CFC58E0F8CB443B54BE72201E8916E94CBB3>