On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 11:25:37PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> At Sat, 7 Apr 2007 12:16:00 +0200,
> Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
[]
> > I'm a little sorrowful to see KAME's work going to be forgotten, but
> > well, this is Darwin's law :-).
> >
> > BTW, a couple of years ago, I've tried KAME's
On Apr 8, 2007, at 9:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At Sat, 7 Apr 2007 12:16:00 +0200,
Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
Hi, Bruce,
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:27:30AM +0100, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
I'm all for this in principle. I believe that the case for
FAST_IPSEC
over KAME IPSEC is fairly clear fo
At Sat, 7 Apr 2007 12:16:00 +0200,
Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
>
> Hi, Bruce,
>
> On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:27:30AM +0100, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> > I'm all for this in principle. I believe that the case for FAST_IPSEC
> > over KAME IPSEC is fairly clear for those of us who have read the USENIX
>
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 04:49:01PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The patch removes Kame derived IPsec from the tree, and adds v6 support to
FAST_IPSEC. The IPSEC kernel option is removed, but the FAST_IPSEC option
remains. This i
Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> Hi, Bruce,
>
> On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:27:30AM +0100, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
>> I'm all for this in principle. I believe that the case for FAST_IPSEC
>> over KAME IPSEC is fairly clear for those of us who have read the USENIX
>> paper. Qualitatively speaking I can say
Hi, Bruce,
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:27:30AM +0100, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> I'm all for this in principle. I believe that the case for FAST_IPSEC
> over KAME IPSEC is fairly clear for those of us who have read the USENIX
> paper. Qualitatively speaking I can say FAST_IPSEC has been more
> pl
I'm all for this in principle. I believe that the case for FAST_IPSEC
over KAME IPSEC is fairly clear for those of us who have read the USENIX
paper. Qualitatively speaking I can say FAST_IPSEC has been more
pleasant to work with when introducing the TCP-MD5 support.
I will try to look at the
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 04:49:01PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >The patch removes Kame derived IPsec from the tree, and adds v6
> >support to FAST_IPSEC. The IPSEC kernel option is removed, but the
> >FAST_IPSEC option remains. This is a test patch and has a known
> >p
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The patch removes Kame derived IPsec from the tree, and adds v6
support to FAST_IPSEC. The IPSEC kernel option is removed, but the
FAST_IPSEC option remains. This is a test patch and has a known
problem with routing packets through a node. Nodes can operate in a
host m
Hi,
There is now a patch here:
http://people.freebsd.org/~gnn/fast_ipv6.20070406.diff
which follows the current state of my radical_ipsec p4 branch.
The patch removes Kame derived IPsec from the tree, and adds v6
support to FAST_IPSEC. The IPSEC kernel option is removed, but the
FAST_IPSEC opt
10 matches
Mail list logo
