[Openswan Users] OpenSWAN - so dang hard to implement?! Help!

Paul Wouters paul at xelerance.com
Mon Mar 1 20:02:33 CET 2004

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Doran Barton wrote:

> > Did you try and download openswan-2.0.0.tar.gz and use 'make rpm' ?
> No, I didn't know about that... I gave up on trying to get 2.0.0 working
> because I assumed NAT-T was not applied in 2.0.0. 

It is.

> The reason I thought this
> is because I installed the ATRPMs build of openswan 2.0.0 and when I put
> "nat_traversal=yes" in ipsec.conf, I got errors:

Then Alex didn't put it in because of the conflicts with 2.6 nat code. The rpms
were mostly meant for stock fedora kernels I think.
> I may be wrong, but this tells me the ATRPMs openswan 2.0.0 build doesn't
> have the NAT-T code in it. Right?

> So... is NAT-T really enabled by default (or enablable?) in openswan 2.0.0?


> If I do a "make rpm" will I get RPMs that include NAT-T support? If so,


> I'll have to kiss someone.

Finding the appropriate target is left as an exercise to the reader.
It's amazing how quickly someone can go from talking about being on the
cutting edge, and fighting for freedom and liberty and information wants
to be free, to becoming a total right wing reactionary censorship wacko,
if naked girls are involved.        --- Aaron, producer of haxxxor

More information about the Users mailing list