Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 13:12:13 +0100 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>, Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu> Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Support for the enc(4) pseudo-interface Message-ID: <58D1189D.2050201@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <12FB978F-D222-4221-9DE9-40AFB435187C@lists.zabbadoz.net> References: <1490085811-bc1aa9c7b83aeddb9dee198bc4071b35@olivarim.com> <44FBCEF5-6151-46FF-A166-81E7306914CC@sigsegv.be> <58D11201.1000403@quip.cz> <20170321114636.GH64587@home.opsec.eu> <12FB978F-D222-4221-9DE9-40AFB435187C@lists.zabbadoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote on 2017/03/21 12:56: > On 21 Mar 2017, at 11:46, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > >> Hi! >> >>>> If you want to filter on it it should work if you add ???device >>>> enc??? to your >>>> kernel config. The man page suggests that should then allow you to >>>> filter IPSec >>>> traffic on enc0. >>> >>> Shouldn't it be included in GENERIC if IPSec is now part of it? >> >> Yes, please include enc in the GENERIC kernel. > > I thought the entire idea of making ipsec loadable was that we don’t > have to ship it in the kernel and have it available? Then sorry for the noise. Miroslav Lachman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?58D1189D.2050201>