Hi Salvatore Thank you for your comment. I'm adding OpenSwan support as additional driver, so it is safe for strongswan.
Best Nachi 2013/8/19 Salvatore Orlando <sorla...@nicira.com>: > 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 > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
