From: Eric Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:34:59 -0400
> I'm not at all able to speak on the correctness or validity of the > solution, Neither am I yet :) > but shouldn't the ipv6 case be a && not an || like the ipv4 > case? Isn't this going to match all sorts of things? Did you test this > patch on ipv6 and see it to solve your problem? > > I'm also not enjoying the formatting in the ipv6 part where the first > time you have the cast on the same time as the object but not the second > part where x->props.saddr.a6 is on its own little line. Also, I want to understand what is going to tear down these "other direction" fake entries later on? I think I can review this patch better if I understand that. As it stands, this looks to me like a workaround for an improperly implemented IPSEC daemon. Joy states it as saying that the current code requires the keying daemon to manage it's SAs, and I wonder whether any other implementation is even valid. There is a limit to the amount to which we can workaround racoon's design issues. :-) - 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
