Mike Belopuhov: > Should we maybe just list them all in a consecutive order > w/o adherence to a particular standard and eliminate gaps > so that checks for "greater than SADB_EALG_MAX" actually > make sense? Or do we want to continue following IKEv2 > registry?
I'm fine with either approach. The numbers aren't used to index arrays so the absolute values don't really matter. Are the checks for SADB_[AE]ALG_MAX in pfkeyv2_parsemessage.c really meaningful? I would like to remove the defines for algorithms we don't (and won't) support--as well as the corresponding useless stubs that have invaded ipsecctl and iked. Actually renumbering the current values would impose a flag day since the kernel and ipsecctl/isakmpd/iked need to be in sync. I'm not sure that's worth it. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber [email protected]
