From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 2 07:20:51 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B81516A4CE for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 07:20:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.198.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25DD443D4C for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 07:20:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cristjc@comcast.net) Received: from goku.cjclark.org (c-24-6-187-112.client.comcast.net[24.6.187.112]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2005020207204801300k7sbne>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 07:20:48 +0000 Received: from goku.cjclark.org (localhost. [127.0.0.1]) by goku.cjclark.org (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j127KZdK017074 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 23:20:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cristjc@comcast.net) Received: (from cjc@localhost) by goku.cjclark.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j127KQgj017073 for net@freebsd.org; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 23:20:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cristjc@comcast.net) X-Authentication-Warning: goku.cjclark.org: cjc set sender to cristjc@comcast.net using -f Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 23:20:25 -0800 From: "Crist J. Clark" To: net@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20050202072025.GB14664@goku.cjclark.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-URL: http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ Subject: NAT-T Implementation X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Crist J. Clark" List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:20:51 -0000 Now that NAT-T has moved on from Internet Draft to RFC, does anyone out there know if anyone is working on an implementation for FAST_IPSEC or KAME? I believe the isakmpd(8) daemon in ports supports it, but AFAIK, the kernel does not. Short of some really ugly divert(4) or netgraph(4) kludges (that is not a totally idle threat either), are we going to see in-kernel support for that anytime soon? Or is this code out there and I just haven't seen it? -- Crist J. Clark | cjclark@alum.mit.edu