netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] IPsec: add support for Twofish and Serpent

To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPsec: add support for Twofish and Serpent
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:12:59 -0700
Cc: pp@xxxxxxxxx, kyle@xxxxxxxxxx, jmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308142324310.29579-100000@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20030814180857.GA4205@xxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308142324310.29579-100000@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:25:11 +0300 (EEST)
Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Very much agree.

I totally disagree, choice is everything.

That's why we allow NULL crypto algorithms.  Not doing
so turns this into a political thing, which I decidedly
do not want our IPSEC implementation to be all about.

And therefore I will add the patch.

> Also, I could be missing something, but I think it takes much more to add 
> an encryption algorithm than what the patch does?!?!

If you use the netlink based IPSEC implementation, any crypto
algorithm is supported fully the moment it is added to crypto/.

When using pfkeyv2 sockets, yes you have to assign a number and then
the APP has to be aware of it.  This just shows how bogus it is to use
fixed numbers instead of strings to select crypto algorithms.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>