On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:18:07PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > As I review this patch I realize there is a question of > semantics and prioritization here.
Indeed. Unfortunately I was doing other things at the time sub-policies were introduced so I didn't pay attention to it. After a quick look, it seems that the intention is to perform some sort of recursive lookup (restricted to 2 levels only). If that is the intention, perhaps we should try to come up with a better mechansim because hard-coding a single level of recursion for mobility is probably not the best solution as this is just a special case of the general nested tunnel problem. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
