On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 10:47, Antony Antony wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 09:10:40AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 07:49, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > > > On Jan 24, 2020, at 13:44, Andrew Cagney
> > > >> They do. no = 0, yes = 1 and the man page does not explain this.
>
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 09:10:40AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 07:49, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > > On Jan 24, 2020, at 13:44, Andrew Cagney
> > >> They do. no = 0, yes = 1 and the man page does not explain this.
> > >
> > > So if I specify:
> > > ipsec-interface=no
> > > I
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 07:49, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 24, 2020, at 13:44, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> They do. no = 0, yes = 1 and the man page does not explain this.
> >
> > So if I specify:
> > ipsec-interface=no
> > I get interface 0, and:
>
> No, you get no interface beca
> On Jan 24, 2020, at 13:44, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>>
>> They do. no = 0, yes = 1 and the man page does not explain this.
>
> So if I specify:
> ipsec-interface=no
> I get interface 0, and:
No, you get no interface because 0 means no. This is because the current Linux
implementation uses
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 07:34, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> >> As no other people are weighing in, I'll stop objecting provided the
> >> parser crashers are resolved.
> >
> > How does the manual page describe the behaviour?
> > Presumably the meaning of "no"
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020, Andrew Cagney wrote:
As no other people are weighing in, I'll stop objecting provided the
parser crashers are resolved.
How does the manual page describe the behaviour?
Presumably the meaning of "no", "yes", and do not overlap.
They do. no = 0, yes = 1 and the man page
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020, Tuomo Soini wrote:
It is not a regression. It is a fix. It does show we have another
problem with connswitching. This issue, and the OE shunt issue
and the two release blockers for 3.30
While it might be a fix it is a regression. It causes first matching
connection to fail
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020, Antony Antony wrote:
That's not how API's really work. Once we have it, we cannot change it anymore
:(
A nice theory.
It sounds more optimism:) and less reality. Also seeing historically we have
initial_contact initial-contact.
Just the option being renamed is different
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 06:14:51 -0500 (EST)
Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020, Antony Antony wrote:
>
> > while testing xfrmi Tuomo noticed reggression in connswitch code.
>
> It is not a regression. It is a fix. It does show we have another
> problem with connswitching. This issue, and
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020, Antony Antony wrote:
while testing xfrmi Tuomo noticed reggression in connswitch code.
It is not a regression. It is a fix. It does show we have another
problem with connswitching. This issue, and the OE shunt issue
and the two release blockers for 3.30
I didn't yet figu
while testing xfrmi Tuomo noticed reggression in connswitch code.
We lookd further, and found the issue in test cases too,
ikev2-connswitch-01. Using git bisect:
# first bad commit: [c3ac240cb62e032b3efaebe8cfec79de5ed9ccf2] IKEv2:
# !POLICY_ALLOW_NO_SAN was only checked on initiator, not respond
11 matches
Mail list logo
