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 > pleasant to work with when introducing the TCP-MD5 support.
Would you point out the paper you're talking about please ? George, Thank you for your work! 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 snapshot against my RELENG_4's tree. There was a number of features that weren't in the base system and I'm pretty sure this is still the case. I can't remember them all but one: NAT-PT (RFC2766) (IPv4<->IPv6 translation). Do you have any idea what those features will become in later days ? Thank you. Best regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen < jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org > _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
