Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+2\.6\.12\.2\]\s+XFRM\:\s+BEET\s+IPsec\s+mode\s+for\s+Linux\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+2\.6\.12\.2\]\s+XFRM\:\s+BEET\s+IPsec\s+mode\s+for\s+Linux\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [PATCH 2.6.12.2] XFRM: BEET IPsec mode for Linux (score: 1): Author: Diego Beltrami <diego.beltrami@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:01:39 +0300; after sending the first version of BEET patch and having received a valuable feedback and after the discussion based upon the BEET design, we now send the new BEET patch which allows for BEET to wor; /archives/netdev/2005-08/msg00003.html (10,069 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH 2.6.12.2] XFRM: BEET IPsec mode for Linux (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:40:52 +1000; Thanks for the new patch. Unfortunately it really looks quite similar to the previous patch :) I thought getting rid of the interfamily stuff would remove the need to touch this file, no? Thanks, --; /archives/netdev/2005-08/msg00024.html (9,125 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH 2.6.12.2] XFRM: BEET IPsec mode for Linux (score: 1): Author: Diego Beltrami <diego.beltrami@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:38:31 +0300; Well to me it's more of an issue of maintainability. BEET mode is more akin to transport/tunnel mode than AH/ESP/IPcomp. As such its implementation would be most at home where the existing encapsulat; /archives/netdev/2005-08/msg00027.html (10,537 bytes)
4. [PATCH 2.6.12.2] XFRM: BEET IPsec mode for Linux (score: 1): Author: Diego Beltrami <diego.beltrami@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:41:48 +0300; Hi folks, we have been working for three months to implement a new IPsec mode, the "BEET" mode, for Linux. Below is a link to the BEET specification and the abstract: http://www.ietf.org/internet-dra; /archives/netdev/2005-07/msg00182.html (81,363 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH 2.6.12.2] XFRM: BEET IPsec mode for Linux (score: 1): Author: Miika Komu <miika@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:02:59 +0300 (EEST); We added more files to the same directory that are helpful for testing the patch. There is a patch for setkey which enables you to configure security associations manually. Also, there is a simple s; /archives/netdev/2005-07/msg00187.html (9,077 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH 2.6.12.2] XFRM: BEET IPsec mode for Linux (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:36:25 +1000; Thanks for the patch guys, this is really interesting. Although the document only talks about ESP, as far as I can see the encapsulation can be applied to AH/IPComp just as well. So how about moving; /archives/netdev/2005-07/msg00205.html (10,419 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH 2.6.12.2] XFRM: BEET IPsec mode for Linux (score: 1): Author: Diego Beltrami <diego.beltrami@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 14:01:18 +0300; The Linux patch which has been presented (see URL: http://infrahip.hiit.fi/beet/beet-patch-v1.0-2.6.12.2 ), has been developed based upon the design given by the draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-d; /archives/netdev/2005-07/msg00215.html (10,873 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH 2.6.12.2] XFRM: BEET IPsec mode for Linux (score: 1): Author: Diego Beltrami <diego.beltrami@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:01:39 +0300; Folks, after sending the first version of BEET patch and having received a valuable feedback and after the discussion based upon the BEET design, we now send the new BEET patch which allows for BEET; /archives/netdev/2005-08/msg00164.html (10,114 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH 2.6.12.2] XFRM: BEET IPsec mode for Linux (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:40:52 +1000; Thanks for the new patch. Unfortunately it really looks quite similar to the previous patch :) I thought getting rid of the interfamily stuff would remove the need to touch this file, no? Thanks, --; /archives/netdev/2005-08/msg00185.html (9,292 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH 2.6.12.2] XFRM: BEET IPsec mode for Linux (score: 1): Author: Diego Beltrami <diego.beltrami@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:38:31 +0300; Well to me it's more of an issue of maintainability. BEET mode is more akin to transport/tunnel mode than AH/ESP/IPcomp. As such its implementation would be most at home where the existing encapsulat; /archives/netdev/2005-08/msg00188.html (10,889 bytes)
11. [PATCH 2.6.12.2] XFRM: BEET IPsec mode for Linux (score: 1): Author: Diego Beltrami <diego.beltrami@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:41:48 +0300; Hi folks, we have been working for three months to implement a new IPsec mode, the "BEET" mode, for Linux. Below is a link to the BEET specification and the abstract: http://www.ietf.org/internet-dra; /archives/netdev/2005-07/msg00406.html (81,408 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH 2.6.12.2] XFRM: BEET IPsec mode for Linux (score: 1): Author: Miika Komu <miika@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:02:59 +0300 (EEST); We added more files to the same directory that are helpful for testing the patch. There is a patch for setkey which enables you to configure security associations manually. Also, there is a simple s; /archives/netdev/2005-07/msg00411.html (9,259 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH 2.6.12.2] XFRM: BEET IPsec mode for Linux (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:36:25 +1000; Thanks for the patch guys, this is really interesting. Although the document only talks about ESP, as far as I can see the encapsulation can be applied to AH/IPComp just as well. So how about moving; /archives/netdev/2005-07/msg00429.html (10,540 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH 2.6.12.2] XFRM: BEET IPsec mode for Linux (score: 1): Author: Diego Beltrami <diego.beltrami@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 14:01:18 +0300; The Linux patch which has been presented (see URL: http://infrahip.hiit.fi/beet/beet-patch-v1.0-2.6.12.2 ), has been developed based upon the design given by the draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-d; /archives/netdev/2005-07/msg00439.html (11,093 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]