From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 6 13:44:43 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D24816A4CE; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 13:44:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from postfix3-2.free.fr (postfix3-2.free.fr [213.228.0.169]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0940143D1D; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 13:44:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (unknown [82.233.239.98]) by postfix3-2.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3720C035; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 14:44:41 +0100 (CET) Received: by tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 56798412C; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 14:43:16 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 14:43:15 +0100 From: Jeremie Le Hen To: Andre Oppermann Message-ID: <20041206134315.GF79919@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <20041129100949.GA19560@bps.jodocus.org> <41AAF696.6ED81FBF@freebsd.org> <20041129103031.GA19828@bps.jodocus.org> <41AB3A74.8C05601D@freebsd.org> <20041129174954.GA26532@bps.jodocus.org> <41AB65B2.A18534BF@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41AB65B2.A18534BF@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: Joost Bekkers cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: (review request) ipfw and ipsec processing order for outgoingpackets X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:44:43 -0000 > > > > I have some stuff wrt [Fast]IPSEC and your problem in the works and > > > > it should become ready around christmas time (loadable [Fast]IPSEC, at > > > > least for IPv4). > > > > > > While this way of 'fixing' the IPSEC problem works it is rather gross > > > and not very stylish. I prefer not to have this in the tree as makes > > > maintainance a lot harder. > > > > I totaly agree that it is not pretty. I was trying to avoid duplicating > > the code (so every change would have to be made twice) and making it a > > function didn't sit right for some reason. Hints/tips for dealing with > > this kind of situation are welcome, but maybe better off-list. > > As things currently are with IPSEC code weaved directly into ip_input() > and ip_output() there is no better way than what you have proposed. > > It will solve it much more nicely. :) If I understand correctly, either Joost's patch or your nice changes that-should-appear-before-christmas will achieve what the OpenBSD enc(4) interface provides [1]. It would be really wonderful. But I may be missing something because I can see no way in firewall rules to distinguish between the before IPSec processing hook and the after IPSec processing one. Could you clarify this for me please ? Thanks in advance. Best regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen jeremie@le-hen.org