At Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:48:56 + (UTC),
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Can we please drop the FAST_ prefix along with the old IPSEC when we
> > get to that point ?
>
> yes, I think that is gnn's plan. I was a bit worried because it'll be
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Hi,
Can we please drop the FAST_ prefix along with the old IPSEC when we
get to that point ?
yes, I think that is gnn's plan. I was a bit worried because it'll be
confusing that IPSEC->gone and FAST_IPSEC->IPSEC but hey IPSEC is gone;-)
Don't kno
Can I ask a really fundamental question:
Names like "newbus", "SMPng", "FAST_IPSEC" and similar grow really silly
over time, because the attribute they carry in their name gets outdated.
Once FAST_IPSEC replaces IPSEC, what is it faster than ?
Can we please drop the FAST_ prefix along with the
Hi,
I have been hacking on, testing and fixing the FAST_IPSEC code with
support for IPv6 for a while now. There are still some issues to be
worked out in the v6 integration but the v4 code is solid, in that it
passes the full TAHI test suite. I intend to integrate this code into
HEAD (I already
