As I said during the meeting, I am happy to support both as long as the code churn is reasonably contained and the chances of strongswan support introducing bugs into openswan driver are negligible.
Openswan should be the default solution, in muy opinion. Salvatore On 20 August 2013 00:15, Nachi Ueno <na...@ntti3.com> wrote: > Hi folks > > I would like to discuss whether supporting OpenSwan or StrongSwan or Both > for > ipsec driver? > > We choose StrongSwan because of the community is active and plenty of docs. > However It looks like RHEL is only supporting OpenSwan. > > so we should choose > > (A) Support StrongSwan > (B) Support OpenSwan > (C) Support both > (C-1) Make StrongSwan default > (C-2) Make OpenSwan default > > Actually, I'm working on C-2. > The patch is still WIP https://review.openstack.org/#/c/42264/ > > Besides the patch is small, supporting two driver may burden > in H3 including docs or additional help. > IMO, this is also a valid comment. > > Best > Nachi > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
