; To: "Neale Ranns (nranns)"
> Cc: Christian Hopps , vpp-dev
> Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] ipsec interface revisted.
>
>
>
>
>> On Jun 26, 2020, at 4:22 AM, Neale Ranns (nranns) wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> As far as I'm concerned, i
From: Christian Hopps
Date: Friday 26 June 2020 at 12:13
To: "Neale Ranns (nranns)"
Cc: Christian Hopps , vpp-dev
Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] ipsec interface revisted.
On Jun 26, 2020, at 4:22 AM, Neale Ranns (nranns)
mailto:nra...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Chris,
As far as I&#
> On Jun 26, 2020, at 4:22 AM, Neale Ranns (nranns) wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> As far as I'm concerned, it's your plugin, you can add whatever functionality
> you need. If you separate the new interface type out into another plugin, so
> it can be used without your feature, then the community
Hi Chris,
As far as I'm concerned, it's your plugin, you can add whatever functionality
you need. If you separate the new interface type out into another plugin, so it
can be used without your feature, then the community will benefit twice. Let's
just make sure we document the whys and hows of
Hi Neale,
It's maybe worth pointing this out: using policy based IPsec continues to work
fine for me. What I had and lost is route based IPsec, i.e., a destination
interface that directs traffic to an SA *without trying to
"partially-implement" the tunnel mode SA functionality*.
The new code i
Hi Chris,
On 22/06/2020 13:09, "Christian Hopps" wrote:
>
> - It operates directly with the IPsec tunnel mode and transport mode SAs
without needing to mangle the internal definition of SA tunnel into transport
mode.
Do you have any comments on this point? This is what I was t
> On Jun 22, 2020, at 4:11 AM, Neale Ranns via lists.fd.io
> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: on behalf of Christian Hopps
> Date: Thursday 18 June 2020 at 18:20
> To: vpp-dev
> Cc: Christian Hopps
> Subject: [vpp-dev] ipsec interface revisted.
>
> Hi,
>
>
From: on behalf of Christian Hopps
Date: Thursday 18 June 2020 at 18:20
To: vpp-dev
Cc: Christian Hopps
Subject: [vpp-dev] ipsec interface revisted.
Hi,
So to revisit this topic from a different angle. I believe VPP needs something
like the xfrm linux interface [1]. If I understand things
Hi,
So to revisit this topic from a different angle. I believe VPP needs something
like the xfrm linux interface [1]. If I understand things correctly this
actually provides what was useful (but more-so) with old ipsec interface
functionality that has been lost. It is also a much cleaner/more p
