Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 12:47:18 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> Cc: Bill Trost <trost@cloud.rain.com>, Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, net@FreeBSD.ORG, core@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: INRIA IPv6 on FreeBSD Message-ID: <199805140447.MAA11059@spinner.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 13 May 1998 23:53:01 -0400." <Pine.BSF.3.96.980513234934.17033b-100000@sasami.jurai.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Matthew N. Dodd" wrote: > > 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. I guess the real question is... where do we want to end up? Do we want to end up with a seamlessly integrated IPv6, or something that's kept at arm's length? Also, there are other IPv6 implementations out there, perhaps the most important is the Linux 2.1.x version. Where do they put there include files? Putting our includes in a gratuitously different location is only going to cause us pain. > 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.... (-: Due to the nature of the US regulations, this is almost irrelevant since FreeBSD is distributed from US soil. If IPSEC and/or IPv6 crypto is going to be implemented in FreeBSD, then it *must* be done as a stand-alone package otherwise FreeBSD will cause major export nightmares for people outside of the San Francisco area. US based mirrors would not be able to carry open mirrors of FreeBSD. This problem is almost a strike against WIDE unless their ipsec/crypto stuff is very easily and completely paritioned. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Netplex Consulting 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?199805140447.MAA11059>