On 19/12/2017 03:43, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
BTW I committed a change that disables IFEF_MPSAFE by default on
all interfaces because it seems that IFEF_MPSAFE requires additional
changes to work safely with it. We should enable it by default if an
interface is guaranteed to be safe.
What additional
In article <20171218184400.ga27...@britannica.bec.de>,
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 06:49:44PM +0900, Kengo NAKAHARA wrote:
>> (a) Add if_ipsec.4
>> (b) move current ipsec.4(for ipsec protocol) to ipsec.9, and then
>> add ipsec.4(for ipsec pseudo interface)
>
David Holland wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 07:21:33PM +, David Holland wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 03:04:32PM +, Robert Swindells wrote:
> > > I wrote:
> > >> Does anyone know why we don't use the input 'optlen' parameter to the
> > >> getsockopt(2) syscall, we do write back
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 07:21:33PM +, David Holland wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 03:04:32PM +, Robert Swindells wrote:
> > I wrote:
> >> Does anyone know why we don't use the input 'optlen' parameter to the
> >> getsockopt(2) syscall, we do write back to it on return.
> >> [..
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 03:04:32PM +, Robert Swindells wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Does anyone know why we don't use the input 'optlen' parameter to the
>> getsockopt(2) syscall, we do write back to it on return.
>> [...]
>>
>> There are also lots of places in sctp_usrreq that want to use it.
On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 06:40:04AM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> I propose to remove the sstk syscall.
>
> It has been added in day0 by with the initial NetBSD commit and
> never implemented. It has been purged from OpenBSD and is still around
> in FreeBSD as never implemented and comment
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 06:49:44PM +0900, Kengo NAKAHARA wrote:
> (a) Add if_ipsec.4
> (b) move current ipsec.4(for ipsec protocol) to ipsec.9, and then
> add ipsec.4(for ipsec pseudo interface)
> (c) any other
I'd call it either ifipsec(4) or ipsecif(4).
Joerg
In article <02c36311-2fcd-08cf-cc71-b472e7c01...@iij.ad.jp>,
Kengo NAKAHARA wrote:
>Hi,
>
>We implement ipsec(4) pseudo interface for route-based VPNs. This pseudo
>interface manages its security policy(SP) by itself, in particular, we do
># ifconfig ipsec0 tunnel 10.0.0.1 10.0.0.2
>the SPs "
Hi Martin,
- add a variation of uftdi that attaches on single interfaces (Wolfgang,
can you share your code, even if it does not work with -current?), and
either always use this variant, or use this variant on chips matched
by above mentioned quirks table.
See attached.
The only
Hi,
We implement ipsec(4) pseudo interface for route-based VPNs. This pseudo
interface manages its security policy(SP) by itself, in particular, we do
# ifconfig ipsec0 tunnel 10.0.0.1 10.0.0.2
the SPs "10.0.0.1 -> 10.0.0.2"(out) and "10.0.0.2 -> 10.0.0.1"(in) are
generated automatically and a
10 matches
Mail list logo