On Tue, 2005-20-12 at 06:04 +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, jamal wrote: > > > On Mon, 2005-19-12 at 13:57 -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > >> From: jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 08:17:19 -0500 > >> > >>> Just an addendum: If this works it should be sysctl controlled i hope. > >> > >> There is absolutely no reason for that, so no :) > >> > > > > Well, we went from "use old SA" to "use new SA" policy;-> > > No, we went from "use both new and old SA" to "always use the same (new) > SA". Adding a sysctl for keeping kernel buggy is totally wrong. >
For completion sake could you test with one side being the old linux kernel (before this patch) and have two test cases in which the old linux kernel acts as a) initiator b) responder. >From what you describe above and what Dave has told me it should _just work_. It would be useful to make sure Murphy is not lurking. cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
