[PATCH ipsec-next 0/7]: Support multiple VTIs with the same src+dst pair

2017-12-20 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
When using IPsec tunnel mode, VTIs provide many benefits compared to direct configuration of xfrm policies / states. However, one limitation is that there can only be one VTI between a given pair of IP addresses. This does not allow configuring multiple IPsec tunnels to the same security gateway. T

Re: [ipsec-next,0/7] : Support multiple VTIs with the same src+dst pair

2018-01-05 Thread Antony Antony
Hi Lorenzo, I agree vti is very limiting! I am glad to hear about xfrmi. I saw two tunnels between gateways send traffic using VTI. So I am curious what is different in your case. Or are you dealing with something else? Here are a couple of outputs from libreswan testing this is the verbose ou

Re: [PATCH ipsec-next 0/7]: Support multiple VTIs with the same src+dst pair

2018-01-03 Thread Steffen Klassert
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 02:06:00AM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > When using IPsec tunnel mode, VTIs provide many benefits compared > to direct configuration of xfrm policies / states. However, one > limitation is that there can only be one VTI between a given pair > of IP addresses. This does not

Re: [PATCH ipsec-next 0/7]: Support multiple VTIs with the same src+dst pair

2018-01-04 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Steffen Klassert wrote: > The fact that you need new keyed VTIs looks a bit like a workaround > of the design limitations the VTI interfaces have. Unfortunately > this is not the only limitation of VTI and I think we don't get what > we really want by changing VTI w

Re: [PATCH ipsec-next 0/7]: Support multiple VTIs with the same src+dst pair

2018-01-04 Thread Steffen Klassert
On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 01:41:46AM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Steffen Klassert > wrote: > > The fact that you need new keyed VTIs looks a bit like a workaround > > of the design limitations the VTI interfaces have. Unfortunately > > this is not the only limitat