On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:06:19 -0400, "George V. Neville-Neil"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:56:41 -0700,
> julian wrote:
>>
>> I'm planning on committing it unless someone can provide a reason not
>> to, as I've seen it working, needed it, and have not seen any bad
>> byproduc
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:56:41 -0700, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> mgrooms wrote:
>>
>> I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but the patch has been
> floating
>> around since before the 5.x days. There just seems to be a dark cloud
>>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 04:30:36PM -0400, Scott Ullrich wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wr=
> ote:
>> > do you have the ability to test this?
>>=20
>> Absolutely. Is this the only thing from preventing it being merged
> into=
> HEAD?
>
> No.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:51:26 -0500, mgrooms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ESP transport with NAT-T may need NAT-OA support, which is not
> provided by the actual patch, nor by userland.
>
I checked in Timos patch for NAT-T original address support into
ipsec-tools last Dece
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:34:56 -0700, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Scott Ullrich wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> where is the patch?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The version that we use in RELENG_7_0 is located here:
>>
>
http://cvs.pf
All,
Is anyone currently looking at the IPsec NAT-T patches? I posted a similar
question several months ago around the FAST_IPSEC + IPv6 integration time
frame. Maybe now that things have settled a bit, this work can be reviewed
and possibly committed?
Thanks,
-Matthew
