[Openswan dev] Re: [PATCH] Openswan and OS X with NAT-T

Peter Van der Beken peterv at propagandism.org
Fri Feb 17 08:20:09 CET 2006

Michael Richardson wrote:
>   so, we put code in such that it didn't matter the order of the hashes.
>   Given that, 10.4.4 should have worked.
>   If OSX 10.4.5 supports RFC3947 out of the box, how come we need a
> patch?

Note that my patch is against Openswan 2.4.4, which doesn't have the 
code to ignore the order of the hashes.

>   I'm really confused here.
>   It seems that 10.4.5 is broken, if we need to patch to work with it.
>   Or, are you claiming openswan 2.4.5 has a bug still?

No, I'm claiming Openswan 2.4.4 does, Openswan 2.4.5 will probably work 
out of the box with 10.4.5.

I think you'll still want to take the constants.c patch, so that logging 
makes some sense.

The vendor.h one probably isn't necessary in 2.4.5 to be interoperable 
with 10.4.5, but IMHO it's nicer to use the RFC-based NAT-T and not the 
draft ones. But that's up for you guys to decide.



More information about the Dev mailing list