> If I am
> doing things wrong, please advise how to do them right, or refer
> me to the documentation that does tell this (of course I read the
> KAME "newsletter", setkey man page and much other stuff, including
> several VPN HOWTO documents that *ALL* use the gif-tunnel hack!)
just make sure,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> sorry if you felt offended. i really think it is issue in routing
> >> table, as multiple SPD configuration works just fine here.
> > still, there's of course a possibility that you have stepped onto
> > some untested code. KAME SNAP kit is,
>> sorry if you felt offended. i really think it is issue in routing
>> table, as multiple SPD configuration works just fine here.
> still, there's of course a possibility that you have stepped onto
> some untested code. KAME SNAP kit is, as documented, very experimental
>
Gunther Schadow wrote:
> I would shut up. But so far I have not seen proof for a complex
> VPN setup with KAME that does work.
We use our X-Bone software (http://www.isi.edu/xbone/) to frequently
create and remove complex overlays (tens of nodes in various topologies)
with dynamic routing and IPs
> sorry if you felt offended. i really think it is issue in routing
> table, as multiple SPD configuration works just fine here.
still, there's of course a possibility that you have stepped onto
some untested code. KAME SNAP kit is, as documented, very experimental
>> my guess is that you have some issue with routing setup.
>> last time, you had some wacky static routes to help source address
>> selection (i do not really recommend that). do you still have them?
>> if so, please show them to us (to mailing list) with in the s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> my guess is that you have some issue with routing setup.
> last time, you had some wacky static routes to help source address
> selection (i do not really recommend that). do you still have them?
> if so, please show them to us (to maili
>Earlier last week I wrote:
>> I just built and tested the latest KAME-SNAP, and it appears as if
>> the two ipsec tunnels work together now. I will have a final word
>> on this later tomorrow, but for now it looks as if this problem
>> requires no further action on your part.
>
>Unfortunately I
Earlier last week I wrote:
> I just built and tested the latest KAME-SNAP, and it appears as if
> the two ipsec tunnels work together now. I will have a final word
> on this later tomorrow, but for now it looks as if this problem
> requires no further action on your part.
Unfortunately I found ou
gunther> PS: BTW, now that fbsd 4.3-RELEASE is out, when are you
gunther> planning to put the SNAP kit on the basis of 4.3? KAME has
gunther> precedence for me right now, so I won't move to 4.3 before
gunther> the first SNAP kit is based on 4.3.
Next SNAP will be based on 4.3-RELEASE.
We've alre
Shoichi,
I just built and tested the latest KAME-SNAP, and it appears as if
the two ipsec tunnels work together now. I will have a final word
on this later tomorrow, but for now it looks as if this problem
requires no further action on your part.
thank you so much for looking into this,
-Gunthe
Shoichi Sakane wrote:
> I have tested, but I couldn't have any error. I made the following network.
> And I executed flooding ping to A from both B and C. All of hosts seemed
> quite stable. Of course, these ICMP packet were encapsulated by ESP.
>
> Actually, I couldn't prepare three FreeBSD
> > > sorry that we did not make any useful responses, some of the kame guys
> > > (mainly sakane) are trying to repeat the symptom.
> > I appreciate that very much!
>
> I have tested, but I couldn't have any error. I made the following network.
> And I executed flooding ping to A from both B an
> > sorry that we did not make any useful responses, some of the kame guys
> > (mainly sakane) are trying to repeat the symptom.
> I appreciate that very much!
I have tested, but I couldn't have any error. I made the following network.
And I executed flooding ping to A from both B and C. All of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> sorry that we did not make any useful responses, some of the kame guys
> (mainly sakane) are trying to repeat the symptom.
I appreciate that very much!
> i ran a small test with slightly different setup on both NetBSD
> 1.5.1_BETA and N
>[Sorry I resend this because it seems as if my subject line
>was turning everyone off from looking at this.]
>Below is what could be a cookbook recipe for IPsec tunnels. However,
>unfortunately it's a bug report. I would like some of you to try
>this out and confirm the problem for me, may be fi
[Sorry I resend this because it seems as if my subject line
was turning everyone off from looking at this.]
Below is what could be a cookbook recipe for IPsec tunnels. However,
unfortunately it's a bug report. I would like some of you to try
this out and confirm the problem for me, may be find th
17 matches
Mail list logo
