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

[Paul Wouters]

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?

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

Yes

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

Yes

> I'll have to kiss someone.

Finding the appropriate target is left as an exercise to the reader.
 
Paul
-- 
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