Note: This archive passes through spamassassin. Every mail marked with the subject "*****SPAM*****" has exceed a certain threshold of spam-like behaviour.

Re: [Users] Freeswan implemenatation

From: Sandy Harris (sandy_at_storm.ca)
Date: Sun Apr 21 2002 - 08:15:12 CEST

Next message: viruswall_at_chrysalis-its.com: "[Users] InterScan NT Alert"
Previous message: Telex_Notes_Blm_1_at_telex.com: "[Users] Report to Recipient(s)"
In reply to: George Hadjichristofi: "[Users] Freeswan implemenatation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

George Hadjichristofi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is the freeswan implmentation a Bump in the
> Stack(BITS) implemenation, or is
> it integrated into the OS at the network layer?

Both.

> I always thought the second one was true.

The two are more-or-less synonymous. There are
basically two ways to implement IPsec:

Use a separate box, putting a "bump in the wire".

Integrate it into the OS IP stack, making a
"bump in the stack".
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users_at_lists.freeswan.org
http://lists.freeswan.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Next message: viruswall_at_chrysalis-its.com: "[Users] InterScan NT Alert"
Previous message: Telex_Notes_Blm_1_at_telex.com: "[Users] Report to Recipient(s)"
In reply to: George Hadjichristofi: "[Users] Freeswan implemenatation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Mon Jul 29 2002 - 05:19:52 CEST