[Openswan dev] openswan 2.1.0rc1 rpms

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de
Sat Mar 6 01:00:08 CET 2004

On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 01:27:24AM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 01:13:11AM +0100, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > 
> > > Note: No kernel patches, so any feature tied to that (NAT-T) is not
> > > there. Do you consider it worth while to patch up the FC1 kernel to
> > > allow for NAT-T (e.g. the ATrpms patched kernels?), or is it wiser to
> > > wait another month for FC2 and 2.6.x?
> > 
> > FC should have UDP_ENCAPS for nat-t. When openswan-2 adds the userland part,
> > it will work without kernel recompiles.
> Even FC1? I thought only RHEL3 and FC2 would do that w/o kernel
> patching. If so, then the FC1 rpms should already support NAT-T. :)

The FC1 kernels say
NAT-Traversal: ESPINUDP(1) not supported by kernel -- NAT-T disabled

So they probably do need the openswan-2.1.0rc1.kern.patch.gz. I
checked that it applies cleanly on the current FC kernels, so I'll try
to build kernels for FC over the WE.

This kernel patch will provide its own ipsec.o, is it a problem if
another ipsec.o is built out of the tree (against this kernel) and
overrides this one?

While this may seem completely redundant and senseless, it will make a
packager's like simpler and happier, since I will be able to use the
same src.rpm for patched and unpatched kernels ;)
Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.openswan.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20040306/f7c6625d/attachment.bin

More information about the Dev mailing list