Subject: Re: IPSEC_NAT_T for FAST_IPSEC
To: Izumi Tsutsui <tsutsui@ceres.dti.ne.jp>
From: None <degroote@netbsd.org>
List: tech-net
Date: 06/20/2007 19:37:32
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 09:10:32PM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
>
> degroote@netbsd.org wrote:
>
> > > - ANSI style function declarations are better - no need __P() at
> > > least for new functions - memset() rather than bzero()
> >
> > I tried to stay coherent with the current code. In a secund time, I
> > plan to ansify all the key management code.
>
> Okay, I'll leave them to maintainers.
>
> > > - IPSEC_NAT_T option should be defflag'ed in files.netipsec?
> >
> > It is already defflag'ed in files.ipsec so I can't defined another time
> > in files.netipsec.
>
> Ah, I didn't notice netinet6/files.ipsec... (BTW, can options
> IPSEC_NAT_T be defined without options INET6?)
>
Of course, we can use IPSEC_NAT_T (and IPSEC) without INET6. IPSEC
implementation comes from KAME and I suppose they added all their files
into netinet6.
--
Arnaud Degroote
degroote@netbsd.org