From owner-freebsd-net Tue May 1 10: 6:14 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from rgmail.regenstrief.org (rgmail.regenstrief.org [134.68.31.197]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170BC37B422 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 10:06:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gunther@aurora.regenstrief.org) Received: from aurora.regenstrief.org (rgnout.regenstrief.org [134.68.31.38]) by rgmail.regenstrief.org (8.11.0/8.8.7) with ESMTP id f41HAvX25666; Tue, 1 May 2001 12:10:57 -0500 Message-ID: <3AEEECF2.4C06466E@aurora.regenstrief.org> Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 17:05:54 +0000 From: Gunther Schadow Organization: Regenstrief Institute for Health Care X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: itojun@iijlab.net Cc: snap-users@kame.net, Shoichi Sakane , freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: (KAME-snap 4582) Re: KAME SPD bug, please try and confirm ... References: <1771.988736350@itojun.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org itojun@iijlab.net wrote: > > >> 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) Thank you so much. I will try. I will again try to produce the least complex setup that allows the problem to be reproduced, certainly without IPFIREWALL (or ALTQ) stuff as you suggested. regards -Gunther To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message