At Sat, 7 Apr 2007 12:16:00 +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > > Hi, Bruce, > > On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:27:30AM +0100, Bruce M. Simpson wrote: > > I'm all for this in principle. I believe that the case for FAST_IPSEC > > over KAME IPSEC is fairly clear for those of us who have read the USENIX > > paper. Qualitatively speaking I can say FAST_IPSEC has been more > > pleasant to work with when introducing the TCP-MD5 support. > > Would you point out the paper you're talking about please ? > http://www.usenix.org/events/bsdcon03/tech/leffler_ipsec.html
You need a password (i.e. you need to be a USENIX member) to read it. > George, > > Thank you for your work! > Thank me when it's done ;-) > I'm a little sorrowful to see KAME's work going to be forgotten, but > well, this is Darwin's law :-). > > BTW, a couple of years ago, I've tried KAME's snapshot against my > RELENG_4's tree. There was a number of features that weren't in the > base system and I'm pretty sure this is still the case. I can't > remember them all but one: NAT-PT (RFC2766) (IPv4<->IPv6 > translation). Do you have any idea what those features will become > in later days ? I am working with another person who is interested in that and who has patches, Yvan VANHULLEBUS, who also posts here. Best, George _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
