From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 15:38:32 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org 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 9070016A40F for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:38:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vanhu@zeninc.net) Received: from leia.fdn.fr (ns0.fdn.org [80.67.169.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6940843D7F for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:38:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vanhu@zeninc.net) Received: from smtp.zeninc.net (reverse-25.fdn.fr [80.67.176.25]) by leia.fdn.fr (8.13.3/8.13.3/FDN) with ESMTP id k9EFcOEM029552 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:38:25 +0200 Received: from jayce.zen.inc (jayce.zen.inc [192.168.1.7]) by smtp.zeninc.net (smtpd) with ESMTP id 1BA0F3F17 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:38:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: by jayce.zen.inc (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 36DD32E232; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:38:19 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:38:18 +0200 From: VANHULLEBUS Yvan To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20061014153818.GA94704@jayce.zen.inc> References: <25685948.1160744185756.JavaMail.root@web03sl> <20061013130256.GA10192@zen.inc> <20061013143201.GA21926@zen.inc> <20061013165518.103236c8@loki.starkstrom.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061013165518.103236c8@loki.starkstrom.lan> User-Agent: All mail clients suck. This one just sucks less. Subject: Re: patch for IPSEC_NAT_T X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:38:32 -0000 On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 04:55:18PM +0200, Joerg Pernfuss wrote: > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:32:01 +0200 > VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote: > > > I don't know what will happen if you define IPSEC_NAT_T, but not IPSEC > > / FAST_IPSEC, guess it will generate the same thing as if you didn' > > define IPSEC_NAT_T. > > Or it won't compile because some defines are missing, just like umass > breaks without scbus. Maybe. But as quite all NAT-T code is inside IPSEC/FAST_IPSEC, it may also just compile cleanly. Yvan. -- NETASQ http://www.netasq.com