From owner-freebsd-net Tue May 1 9:59:14 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 C602237B43C for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 09:59:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from itojun@itojun.org) Received: from itojun.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7539C4B0B; Wed, 2 May 2001 01:59:10 +0900 (JST) To: Gunther Schadow Cc: snap-users@kame.net, Shoichi Sakane , freebsd-net@freebsd.org In-reply-to: itojun's message of Wed, 02 May 2001 01:44:24 +0900. <1626.988735464@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 4582) Re: KAME SPD bug, please try and confirm ... From: itojun@iijlab.net Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 01:59:10 +0900 Message-ID: <1771.988736350@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. if you still are trying to use KAME SNAP, will sys/netkey/key.c revision 1.185 change the situation? (pls grab the latest tree via anoncvs) itojun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message