From owner-freebsd-net Tue May 1 9:44:29 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from coconut.itojun.org (coconut.itojun.org [210.160.95.97]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7277037B50F for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 09:44:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from itojun@itojun.org) Received: from itojun.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B9E4B0B; Wed, 2 May 2001 01:44:24 +0900 (JST) To: snap-users@kame.net Cc: Gunther Schadow , Shoichi Sakane , freebsd-net@freebsd.org In-reply-to: itojun's message of Wed, 02 May 2001 01:26:54 +0900. <1482.988734414@itojun.org> X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD 90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2 Subject: Re: (KAME-snap 4581) Re: KAME SPD bug, please try and confirm ... From: itojun@iijlab.net Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 01:44:24 +0900 Message-ID: <1626.988735464@itojun.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > sorry if you felt offended. i really think it is issue in routing > table, as multiple SPD configuration works just fine here. still, there's of course a possibility that you have stepped onto some untested code. KAME SNAP kit is, as documented, very experimental set of code. if your setup works with plain FreeBSD 4.3-RELEASE, and if it is a network for production use, i'd suggest you to use 4.3-RELEASE instead of SNAP kit. itojun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message