| To: | Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: IPsec xfrm resolution |
| From: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:03:33 +1100 |
| Cc: | Maillist netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <421789AF.4020705@xxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20050210202810.GA1609@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <42144C3F.2060501@xxxxxxxxx> <20050217091137.GA9476@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <42152841.5000707@xxxxxxxxx> <20050218100854.GA19427@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4216D6B4.5070901@xxxxxxxxx> <20050219092314.GA8153@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <42173125.3040505@xxxxxxxxx> <20050219183202.GA10773@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <421789AF.4020705@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i |
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 07:47:11PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > >That's a bug. How can you forward packets properly if the tunnel mode > >SA is missing? > > Using normal routing. What meaning would "optional" have otherwise ? > If the encapsulation has to be done, the user shouldn't mark the SA > as optional in my opinion. In that case you can't mark IPCOMP SAs as optional in this scenario which is the most common application of optional: IPCOMP(tunnel) -- ESP(transport) -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [XFRM]: Fix ICMP tempsel, Patrick McHardy |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Intel and TOE in the news, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: IPsec xfrm resolution, Patrick McHardy |
| Next by Thread: | Re: IPsec xfrm resolution, Patrick McHardy |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |