Re: patch for IPSEC_NAT_T

2008-06-26 Thread mgrooms
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:51:26 -0500, mgrooms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ESP transport with NAT-T may need NAT-OA support, which is not > provided by the actual patch, nor by userland. > I checked in Timos patch for NAT-T original address support into ipsec-tools last December. This will be a

Re: patch for IPSEC_NAT_T

2008-06-26 Thread Daniil Harun
Hi! > > But when the host is placed over NAT, everything stops working. > > After negotiates IKE and key additions to the database SA traffic does > > not pass. "tcpdump enc0" shows that traffic is decoded normaly, but then > > he does not processed, packets discarded. > > Counters ipfw to rule 1 d

Re: patch for IPSEC_NAT_T

2008-06-26 Thread VANHULLEBUS Yvan
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 04:09:00PM +0600, Daniil Harun wrote: > Dear sirs! Hi. I forgot to reply your private mail this morning, but it's still better to have the question and the answer on a public ML, it may be useful for other people. > Sorry for my bad English! I ask to help me, if you have

patch for IPSEC_NAT_T

2008-06-26 Thread Daniil Harun
Dear sirs! Sorry for my bad English! I ask to help me, if you have some spare time. I'm using the patch for support IPSEC NAT Traversal on FreeBSD 7.0.Will not work NAT-T with Windows XP in the real situation. #cd /usr/src/sys patch < patch-natt-freebsd7-2008-03-11.diff Kernel config (FreeBSD

Re: patch for IPSEC_NAT_T

2006-10-14 Thread VANHULLEBUS Yvan
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 04:55:18PM +0200, Joerg Pernfuss wrote: > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:32:01 +0200 > VANHULLEBUS Yvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't know what will happen if you define IPSEC_NAT_T, but not IPSEC > > / FAST_IPSEC, guess it will generate the same thing as if you didn' >

Re: patch for IPSEC_NAT_T

2006-10-13 Thread Joerg Pernfuss
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:32:01 +0200 VANHULLEBUS Yvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know what will happen if you define IPSEC_NAT_T, but not IPSEC > / FAST_IPSEC, guess it will generate the same thing as if you didn' > define IPSEC_NAT_T. Or it won't compile because some defines are missing,

Re: patch for IPSEC_NAT_T

2006-10-13 Thread VANHULLEBUS Yvan
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 12:27:22AM +1000, Sam Wun wrote: > in the kernel config file, what if I only define options IPSEC_NAT_T without > defining FAST_IPSEC? > I m not familiar with FAST_IPSEC, if I compile IPSEC_NAT_T with or without > FAST_IPSEC, what s that going to affect my current IPSEC con

Re: patch for IPSEC_NAT_T

2006-10-13 Thread Sam Wun
in the kernel config file, what if I only define options IPSEC_NAT_T without defining FAST_IPSEC? I m not familiar with FAST_IPSEC, if I compile IPSEC_NAT_T with or without FAST_IPSEC, what s that going to affect my current IPSEC configuration and connection? Thanks S On 10/13/06, VANHULLEBUS Y

Re: patch for IPSEC_NAT_T

2006-10-13 Thread VANHULLEBUS Yvan
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:56:25PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, Hi. > I tried to compile freebsd 6.2 prerelease source with "options > IPSEC_NAT_T", but it said "unknown option "IPSEC_NAT_T"" when I > build it > > Had IPSEC_NAT_T patch already built into the 6.2 pre source? > > If not,

patch for IPSEC_NAT_T

2006-10-13 Thread fwun
Hi, I tried to compile freebsd 6.2 prerelease source with "options IPSEC_NAT_T", but it said "unknown option "IPSEC_NAT_T"" when I build it Had IPSEC_NAT_T patch already built into the 6.2 pre source? If not, where to obtain the patch? Thanks S ___