From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Dec 2 15:40:58 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA21140 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 15:40:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA21133 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 15:40:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA09804; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 15:42:17 -0800 (PST) To: Ollivier Robert cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Can we just come to a decision on IPv6 and IPSec? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 03 Dec 1998 00:00:27 +0100." <19981203000027.B1061@keltia.freenix.fr> Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 15:42:16 -0800 Message-ID: <9801.912642136@zippy.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > They're supposed to be able to talk to each others. Key distribution (IKE) > is still a hot topic for every IPsec implementation anyway. Yes, but Photuris seems to work "well enough" to serve OpenBSD's needs and all I'm looking for is an equivalent level of functionality. I'll say it again, if either KAME or INRIA can give us _equivalent_ functionality to what's being used today, I'd say the choice will be pretty clear since it's not the vaporware features we want to be basing our decision on. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message