Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 15:06:15 -0700 From: Bill Trost <trost@cloud.rain.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG, core@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: INRIA IPv6 on FreeBSD Message-ID: <5110.895097175@cloud.rain.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 13 May 1998 11:26:21 PDT. <Pine.BSF.3.95.980513112557.10467D-100000@current1.whistle.com> References: <Pine.BSF.3.95.980513112557.10467D-100000@current1.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer writes:
I guess the NRL version is no longer being used or what?
The NRL version contains IPsec and is therefore at least partially
export-controlled. I talked with one of their project leads about a
year ago (and can't remember his name )-: ), though, and he was talking
about making the NRL implementation more "FreeBSD friendly" (NRL's code
is based on NetBSD, as I recall).
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.... (-:
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?5110.895097175>