Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 13:23:03 +0000 From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: "Miroslav Lachman" <000.fbsd@quip.cz>, "Andrey V. Elsukov" <ae@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "Kurt Jaeger" <lists@opsec.eu>, freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Support for the enc(4) pseudo-interface Message-ID: <F183D5AD-7CD2-4191-845D-AE60B6A17C00@lists.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <58D1189D.2050201@quip.cz> 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> <58D1189D.2050201@quip.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 21 Mar 2017, at 12:12, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > 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. well, it was a question; Cc:ing ae@ /bz
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F183D5AD-7CD2-4191-845D-AE60B6A17C00>