On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 01:25:46 +0100, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
> FreeS/WAN is "orphaned" upstream. OpenSWAN is based on FreeS/WAN and as
> such it does not work with 2.6.
"For Kernel's 2.6.0 and higher, Openswan uses the built in IPsec support.
Only the userland component of Openswan is required t
> think an acceptable user-land alternative might be openvpn. I would
I don't think openvpn would easily handle such large number of connections,
it would be also a configuration nightmare.
tinc was designed to handle such scenario, but I wouldn't use anything
user-land for ~100 lans, no metter h
> FreeS/WAN is "orphaned" upstream. OpenSWAN is based on FreeS/WAN and as
> such it does not work with 2.6.
That is untrue.
1.x branch works with 2.4.x kernels, 2.x branch works with 2.6.x
--
Dariush Pietrzak,
Key fingerprint = 40D0 9FFB 9939 7320 8294 05E0 BCC7 02C4 75CC 50D9
Hello!
W liście z wto, 02-03-2004, godz. 22:57, Richard Atterer pisze:
> Does each of these 100 LANs need to connect to *any* other LAN, or just to
> "your" LAN? Are the LANs real LANs or do you only want to connect single
> "road warrior" machines to "your" LAN?
Generally I need possibility
V1AGR|A finally found a tough c0mpetitor -- C1ALI'S!
* Overall e^rectile function! * Partners' Satisfaction with s*exual interc0urse . * satisfaction with the hardness of e-rections. * doctor&FDA a_pproved !
P^l^a^c^e Your O^r^d^e^r H^e^r^e Today '
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 01:14:43PM +0100, Gian Piero Carrubba wrote:
> From
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ch9.en.html#s9.1.6
I've rewritten that in the CVS version, should be available in the website
soon.
Please review it in a few days.
Regards
Javier
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 09:39:06AM +0100, Jaros?aw Tabor wrote:
> I don't know IPSec so good, so one question: if I will add new node
> (LAN), do I need to update configuration of all others about it ? This is
> my biggest concern...
I'm not so sure about this - anybody else?
But I think it's pos
Milan P. Stanic was heard to utter, at roughly 03/03/04 00:25:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:37:52PM -0600, Jacques Normand wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 10:08:22PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
If you're looking for a VPN solution, by all means look at FreeS/WAN (or its
likely successor,
> What is Racoon like in terms of configuration ease? I've used FreeSWAN and
> wilst it's not the easiest to set up, once you've got your head around it,
> it does make sense.
Racoon makes sense from the start;)
--
Dariush Pietrzak,
Key fingerprint = 40D0 9FFB 9939 7320 8294 05E0 BCC7 02C4 75
Hi, CCing the list again because other people might have cleverer ideas. I
hope you don't mind, Jaroslaw.
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:36:27AM +0100, Jaros?aw Tabor wrote:
> That's OK. But what about routing ? How to inform other nodes, about new
> subnet ? I think, that this will require some kind
W liście z śro, 03-03-2004, godz. 12:07, Richard Atterer pisze:
> Later, when network number 42 has been set up to use 10.0.42.0/24, you only
> need to update the DNS entry of ipsec42.mydomain.net and all other LANs
> should be able to use it. (New IPSec links will be set up on demand once
> an
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 08:54:38AM +0100, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> > FreeS/WAN is "orphaned" upstream. OpenSWAN is based on FreeS/WAN and as
> > such it does not work with 2.6.
> That is untrue.
> 1.x branch works with 2.4.x kernels, 2.x branch works with 2.6.x
Right! I shouldn't write mail at
Sorry for this notice guys.8(
It's a pity.
http://www.freeswan.org/ending_letter.html
--
The Linux FreeS/WAN Project
Introduction Online Documentation FreeS/WAN Download
Old News
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 12:07:23 +0100
Richard Atterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, CCing the list again because other people might have cleverer
> ideas. I hope you don't mind, Jaroslaw.
>
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:36:27AM +0100, Jaros?aw Tabor wrote:
> > That's OK. But what about routing ? Ho
> It's a pity.
It's not a pity.
I, for one, welcome our new openswan overlords.
--
Dariush Pietrzak,
Key fingerprint = 40D0 9FFB 9939 7320 8294 05E0 BCC7 02C4 75CC 50D9
You have won!!!
password: 11773
Norton AntiVirus Deleted1.txt
Description: plain/text
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 08:43:47AM -0300, Paulo Ricardo wrote:
> Sorry for this notice guys.8(
>
> It's a pity.
FreeS/WAN came with enough political baggage that I won't particularly
miss it. Particularly given that there is at least one other high
quality IPSec implementation available
Hello!
W liście z wto, 02-03-2004, godz. 22:57, Richard Atterer pisze:
> Does each of these 100 LANs need to connect to *any* other LAN, or just to
> "your" LAN? Are the LANs real LANs or do you only want to connect single
> "road warrior" machines to "your" LAN?
Generally I need possibility
V1AGR|A finally found a tough c0mpetitor -- C1ALI'S!
* Overall e^rectile function! * Partners' Satisfaction with s*exual interc0urse . * satisfaction with the hardness of e-rections. * doctor&FDA a_pproved !
P^l^a^c^e Your O^r^d^e^r H^e^r^e Today '
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 01:14:43PM +0100, Gian Piero Carrubba wrote:
> From
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ch9.en.html#s9.1.6
I've rewritten that in the CVS version, should be available in the website
soon.
Please review it in a few days.
Regards
Javier
--
To UNSU
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 09:39:06AM +0100, Jaros?aw Tabor wrote:
> I don't know IPSec so good, so one question: if I will add new node
> (LAN), do I need to update configuration of all others about it ? This is
> my biggest concern...
I'm not so sure about this - anybody else?
But I think it's pos
Milan P. Stanic was heard to utter, at roughly 03/03/04 00:25:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:37:52PM -0600, Jacques Normand wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 10:08:22PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
If you're looking for a VPN solution, by all means look at FreeS/WAN (or its
likely successor, Open
> What is Racoon like in terms of configuration ease? I've used FreeSWAN and
> wilst it's not the easiest to set up, once you've got your head around it,
> it does make sense.
Racoon makes sense from the start;)
--
Dariush Pietrzak,
Key fingerprint = 40D0 9FFB 9939 7320 8294 05E0 BCC7 02C4 75
Hi, CCing the list again because other people might have cleverer ideas. I
hope you don't mind, Jaroslaw.
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:36:27AM +0100, Jaros?aw Tabor wrote:
> That's OK. But what about routing ? How to inform other nodes, about new
> subnet ? I think, that this will require some kind
W liście z śro, 03-03-2004, godz. 12:07, Richard Atterer pisze:
> Later, when network number 42 has been set up to use 10.0.42.0/24, you only
> need to update the DNS entry of ipsec42.mydomain.net and all other LANs
> should be able to use it. (New IPSec links will be set up on demand once
> an
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 08:54:38AM +0100, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> > FreeS/WAN is "orphaned" upstream. OpenSWAN is based on FreeS/WAN and as
> > such it does not work with 2.6.
> That is untrue.
> 1.x branch works with 2.4.x kernels, 2.x branch works with 2.6.x
Right! I shouldn't write mail at
Sorry for this notice guys.8(
It's a pity.
http://www.freeswan.org/ending_letter.html
--
The Linux FreeS/WAN Project
Introduction Online Documentation FreeS/WAN Download
Old News
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 12:07:23 +0100
Richard Atterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, CCing the list again because other people might have cleverer
> ideas. I hope you don't mind, Jaroslaw.
>
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:36:27AM +0100, Jaros?aw Tabor wrote:
> > That's OK. But what about routing ? Ho
> It's a pity.
It's not a pity.
I, for one, welcome our new openswan overlords.
--
Dariush Pietrzak,
Key fingerprint = 40D0 9FFB 9939 7320 8294 05E0 BCC7 02C4 75CC 50D9
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You have won!!!
password: 11773
Norton AntiVirus Deleted1.txt
Description: plain/text
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 08:43:47AM -0300, Paulo Ricardo wrote:
> Sorry for this notice guys.8(
>
> It's a pity.
FreeS/WAN came with enough political baggage that I won't particularly
miss it. Particularly given that there is at least one other high
quality IPSec implementation available
31 matches
Mail list logo
