| To: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: (udp-en/decap broken in 2.6.8-rc2?) Re: ipsec, nat-t, iproute2? |
| From: | bert hubert <ahu@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 31 Jul 2004 10:34:56 +0200 |
| Cc: | jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <E1Bqod3-0004FB-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Mail-followup-to: | bert hubert <ahu@xxxxxxx>, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <20040730223808.GA12660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <E1Bqod3-0004FB-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 05:50:05PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > You need to have someone open a socket on port 4500 and do the > appropriate setsockopt() on it. Would this be: #define UDP_ESPINUDP 100, known in the kernel as UDP_ENCAP? Does the socket need to be kept open after the setsockopt? Do the encapsulated packets reach userspace? The right way to do this is probably to first get a socket, set it to UDP_ENCAP, and only then try to negotiate an SA, using the port number assigned previously? > > This is the setkey configuration I use on 10.0.0.3: > > Any reason why you aren't using automatic keying? I'm trying to figure out how this stuff works with an eye on documenting it. So far I haven't been able to get openswan to do nat-t, hence I've been trying to do this from the ground up. Thanks. -- http://www.PowerDNS.com Open source, database driven DNS Software http://lartc.org Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO |
| Previous by Date: | Re: (udp-en/decap broken in 2.6.8-rc2?) Re: ipsec, nat-t, iproute2?, Herbert Xu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PFKEY] spirange should be in host byte order, Herbert Xu |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: (udp-en/decap broken in 2.6.8-rc2?) Re: ipsec, nat-t, iproute2?, Herbert Xu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: (udp-en/decap broken in 2.6.8-rc2?) Re: ipsec, nat-t, iproute2?, Herbert Xu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |