From owner-freebsd-ipfw  Sun Apr  8 16:57:32 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Received: from coconut.itojun.org (coconut.itojun.org [210.160.95.97])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D47D337B422; Sun,  8 Apr 2001 16:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from itojun@coconut.itojun.org)
Received: from coconut.itojun.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 667694B0B; Mon,  9 Apr 2001 08:57:25 +0900 (JST)
To: Gunther Schadow <gunther@aurora.regenstrief.org>
Cc: snap-users@kame.net, users@ipv6.org, net@freebsd.org,
	ipfw@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: gunther's message of Sun, 08 Apr 2001 05:10:46 GMT.
      <3ACFF2D6.13219EAB@aurora.regenstrief.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: Consolidating KAME SPD rules and IPFW / IPfilter. 
From: itojun@iijlab.net
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 08:57:25 +0900
Message-ID: <2683.986774245@coconut.itojun.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

>I am tempted to "outsource" the IPsec functionality away from the
>kernel using a demon on a divert socket, just like NATD. This would
>be more modular and keeps the kernel from panicing because of bugs
>in IPsec -- I did have embarrassing kernel crashes, just when I bragged
>about FreeBSD running rock solid :0(.

	checking - did you have kernel panics in kernel IPsec code (then pls
	send-pr), or you are just talking about an example?

itojun

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message