IPSec + 5.2.current Problem

Alexander Leidinger Alexander at Leidinger.net
Tue Aug 10 01:30:57 PDT 2004

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 14:27:49 +0000 (UTC)
"Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists at lists.zabbadoz.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > > which on ? use vs. require ? I think this is just not HEAD.
> >
> > In my case it's -current from Jul 18.
> and use vs. require does make a difference for you ?

I don't know, I can't test it, the box is in production now. But it
seems to make a difference for Hannes.

> > > your problem: do you really need gif(4) ? if yes - what for ?
> >
> > In my case the problem doesn't matter, since using FAST_IPSEC works for
> > me. But I think it should be fixed for 5.3.
> the MSIZE= should really be fixed I think, yes.

I was talking about the other problem we see, I have MSIZE in the
kernel, and IPSEC didn't worked (at least not with require).

> > As you can see in the above mentioned mail, I converted a 4.x system to
> > -current. On 4.x I've used gif for a tunnel (as documented in the
> > handbook)
> I will have to read this. Nether had to use gif(4) with IPsec on the
> 4.[7-*] machines I co-configered. Perhaps the handbook is just
> outdated.
> > between the FreeBSD system and a VPN appliance which isn't
> > under my control. Is there another way to setup a tunnel in -current?
> only use IPSec w/o gif(4). gif(4) is currently needed for few things
> - IPv6 with FAST_IPSEC
> - running s.th. like a link bound routing protocol over IPsec (I think)
> That's what I can think of at the moment.
> but take care - whatever your applicance on the other side does and
> how it had worked up to now ...

Since it works and the system went live, I won't change anything ATM.


           I'm available to get hired (preferred in .lu).

http://www.Leidinger.net                       Alexander @ Leidinger.net
  GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91  3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list