- Original Message -
From: "Shoichi Sakane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 12:26 AM
Subject: Re: kame ipsec vs. openbsd ipsec
> > 1. Has anyone else seriously looked at doing this?
>
>> 1. Has anyone else seriously looked at doing this?
>> 2. Has anyone compared the OpenBSD and KAME implementations and understand
>> their relative strengths? (e.g. is there some reason to work with KAME other
>> than it's already in the system)
>
>i have summarized what some people argued to me
> some people say that OpenBSD has advantage because:
> 2. because SA is shown as a pseudo interface,
> about 4, we don't like to create a pseudo interface of each SA,
> in particular, when we use IPsec transport mode. each userland
> process can use individual SA in KAME. this function
> 1. Has anyone else seriously looked at doing this?
> 2. Has anyone compared the OpenBSD and KAME implementations and understand
> their relative strengths? (e.g. is there some reason to work with KAME other
> than it's already in the system)
i have summarized what some people argued to merge Op
Tariq Rashid wrote:
> On a slightly side note, I'd much prefer to see FreeBSD with IPSEC
> pseudo-interfaces a la OpenBSD/linux.
>
> I'd much prefer to work with say, enc0, or ipsec1, than mess around
> with guf half-tunnels makes complex routing much easier
Have you looked at draft-
in Apr, Sam Leffler probably wrote :
|1. Has anyone else seriously looked at doing this?
|2. Has anyone compared the OpenBSD and KAME implementations and understand
|their relative strengths? (e.g. is there some reason to work with KAME other
|than it's already in the system)
I realize you're
On a slightly side note, I'd much prefer to see FreeBSD with IPSEC
pseudo-interfaces a la OpenBSD/linux.
I'd much prefer to work with say, enc0, or ipsec1, than mess around with
guf half-tunnels makes complex routing much easier
Just a thought - perhaps a netgraph ipsec node is the w
Sam Leffler wrote:
> Yes and no. I was told they wanted to add hardware support but I've been
> unable to reach the "right people" to start a dialogue, which is why I sent
> my note.
Try [EMAIL PROTECTED]; you'll have a response in a few hours (when
daylight hits Japan :-)
Lars
--
Lars Eggert
ler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: kame ipsec vs. openbsd ipsec
> have you asked the KAME people if they have plans to
> do such suppport themselves?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
have you asked the KAME people if they have plans to
do such suppport themselves?
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Sam Leffler wrote:
> I'm slogging through the KAME IPsec code looking at adding support for
> crypto hardware (and NICs that do onboard IPSEC processing). The OpenBSD
> IPsec implementation a
10 matches
Mail list logo
