Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 01:45:24 +0100 From: Rickard Borgmäster <doktorn@realworld.nu> To: Lars Eggert <larse@ISI.EDU> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPSec tunnel FreeBSD<->OpenBSD using isakmp Message-ID: <20020321014524.667eab66.doktorn@realworld.nu> In-Reply-To: <3C9910B6.2090005@isi.edu> References: <20020320205735.0851b080.doktorn@realworld.nu> <3C98EF33.6090207@isi.edu> <20020320231802.222a8dd2.doktorn@realworld.nu> <3C9910B6.2090005@isi.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:44:06 -0800 Lars Eggert <larse@ISI.EDU> hit the keyboard and punched: > No, there is an (older) KAME included in FreeBSD; however that one > doesn't yet represent SAs in the routing table as interfaces. I still do not understand wether I need KAME or not? What would it gain to install KAME? > Sorry for being unclear: You miss a route entry (on the FreeBSD box, > e.g.) that tells it to forward 10/24 to the OpenBSD box. You can't have > such a route, because the SA that connects the two isn't represented in > the routing table (it's a packet filter). One thing that pops up in my head is, "what if I had an interface in the 10.0.0.0/24 net?". Therefore, I am right now recompiling my kernel to include 2 loopback interfaces. Then I will set a 10.0.0.x address to it and we'll se what happens =) What do you think? -- Rickard .--. .--. .----------------------------------------. | | | | .-. | Rickard Borgmäster | | | | |/ / | doktorn@sub.nu | .-^ | .--. | < | http://doktorn.sub.nu/ | ( o | ( () ) | |\ \ `----------------------------------------' `-----' `--' `--' `--' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020321014524.667eab66.doktorn>