On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 10:36:51PM +0100, Guido van Rooij wrote: > On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 01:21:47PM -0800, Crist J. Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 10:19:33PM +1100, Andrew Thomson wrote: > > > Thanks, that worked a treat for me too.. everything back to normal! > > > > > > So what's the go with this fast_ipsec business. Is this going to be the > > > main implementation for Freebsd? > > > > I believe the main reason FAST_IPSEC came to be is support for crypto > > hardware. > > > > However, FAST_IPSEC cannot replace KAME IPsec. FAST_IPSEC is IPv4-only > > whereas KAME is IPv6 with its required IPsec abilities "back-ported" > > into the IPv4 stack. > > > > It would be really, really nice to get this bug out of KAME IPsec > > before 5.2.1, but if 5.2 didn't wait... > > > True. Is KAME aware of this problem or is it FBSD specific? I believe it's FreeBSD specific, but I also believe it is a result of the effort to sync up the KAME stuff in the FreeBSD repository with more recent KAME SNAPs. There was quite a bit of chatter on the list about fixing some IPsec panics. I thought the same people were looking into this too, but when 5.2 passed by without a lot of concern... ? There have been commits to KAME IPsec code in the last day or so, but I haven't reviewed them or tried them out to see if they have anything to do with these issues. -- Crist J. Clark | cjclark_at_alum.mit.edu | cjclark_at_jhu.edu http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ | cjc_at_freebsd.orgReceived on Wed Feb 04 2004 - 13:05:04 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:41 UTC