On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, Matt Rogers wrote:
On October 3, 2014 7:25:17 PM EDT, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
fragmentation will be done differently in ikev2 unfortunately, using:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation-10
Although
I noticed:
/* ML: at last check for allowed transforms in
alg_info_esp */
/* ??? what's ML? */
??? stands for Hugh (though perhaps he perhaps should start using DHR: :)
XXX stands for "someone ancient or Paul"
ML: stands for Mathieu Lafon
Paul
On October 3, 2014 7:25:17 PM EDT, Paul Wouters wrote:
>On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
>fragmentation will be done differently in ikev2 unfortunately, using:
>
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation-10
>
>Although nothing stops us from adding a Notify
On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
complete_v1_state_transition copies these VID settings from md to st:
fragvid, dpd, nortel
complete_v2_state_transition does not.
Are these VID settings meaningful in v2?
mostly not. The nortel one is a workaround for notel, ikev1 only. The
dpd i
Just checking:
complete_v1_state_transition copies these VID settings from md to st:
fragvid, dpd, nortel
complete_v2_state_transition does not.
Are these VID settings meaningful in v2?
___
Swan-dev mailing list
Swan-dev@lists.libreswan.org
https://lis
On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
-fno-optimize-sibling-calls
I have not tested this and I don't know where it belongs in the
Makefile edifice.
It belongs in USERCOMPILE= in Makefile.irc or your own
Makefile.inc.local
___
Swan-dev maili
Tail Call Optimization is a wonderful thing. For example, it lets
certain kinds of recursion to be as cheap as looping. I'm all in favour
of it.
But:
In Pluto, we don't have a lot of cases where TCO gains us much.
Furthermore, it makes gdb tracebacks less informative.
(Continuation-passing s
