On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Kelly Yancey wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote:
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
Why not? IMHO it will be very useful feature: think about e.g. traffic
shaping for several different networks which are routed via the same
ipsec tunnel. Without the enc0, you can only shape them together, e.g.:
why not shaping on the internal interface in case this is a gateway?
You know src and dst there too.
Gateway can also contain sources of traffic, and we should be able
to shape all outgoing or incoming traffic (not only transit packets,
but also locally-originated).
The only difference enc0 makes is for host-only-setups or if you want
to see all your unencrpyted ipsec traffic on a gateway in one place.
It seems to me that it's also useful for general traffic
shaping/accounting/filtering purposes.
I agree 100%. At work, we implemented the enc interface for FreeBSD
4.7 and 4.10 along with extending the divert interface such that we
could perform filtering and NAT on packets after tunnel decapsulation.
you know you can do this with what's in there already w/o enc(4)?
At least I have been doing it for more than two years now with 5.x
and greater. Actually this mail will get to you via such a setup.
Just because one person doesn't have a use for the enc interface, does
not mean that no one does.
agreed.
good arguments for example would also be that filtering IPSec traffic
with pf would becomen possible easily as long as there is no such
thing like the ipsec flag in ipfw...
--
Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
