Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 23:53:01 -0400 (EDT) From: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> To: Bill Trost <trost@cloud.rain.com> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, net@FreeBSD.ORG, core@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: INRIA IPv6 on FreeBSD Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980513234934.17033b-100000@sasami.jurai.net> In-Reply-To: <5110.895097175@cloud.rain.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
One might also add that the form in which INRIA is distributed (foo-orig.x and foo-new.x) is somewhat unfriendly as well. The fact that INRIA also wants to live in sys/netinet is also a bit annoying. I spent some time this evening reading code and my bias at this point is leaning towards WIDE. On Wed, 13 May 1998, Bill Trost wrote: > That brings up an issue in the INRIA-vs-WIDE debate, though. WIDE > explicitly states they have partially implemented IPSEC. As I > understand it, INRIA cannot provide IPSEC because of French crypto > controls (which are worse than even the NSA's...er, I mean Commerce > Department's). If I am right, then this should be considered a strike > against INRIA's IP6 -- and a big one, IMHO, as IPsec is more important > to me than IP6 per se. > > Or, I may be wrong -- at least it's an extrinsic technical criterium we > can use.... (-: /* Matthew N. Dodd | A memory retaining a love you had for life winter@jurai.net | As cruel as it seems nothing ever seems to http://www.jurai.net/~winter | go right - FLA M 3.1:53 */ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980513234934.17033b-100000>