IPv6 readyNote: This archive passes through spamassassin. Every mail marked with the subject "*****SPAM*****" has exceed a certain threshold of spam-like behaviour.

[Users] Re: [Bugs] FS 1.97 and Virtual IP's

From: D. Hugh Redelmeier (hugh_at_mimosa.com)
Date: Tue Jun 11 2002 - 21:26:17 CEST


| From: Michael Richardson <mcr_at_sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>

| {Please keep me on the CC, as I do not read users@ regularly}

Me too.

| >>>>> "Mike" == Mike Thomas <mike_at_bedarra.com> writes:
| Mike> Hello,
|
| Mike> I believe a bug or incompatibility exists between FS and systems with
| Mike> Virtual IP's that are on a different net than the default gateway:
|
| Mike> The scenario:
|
| Mike> eth0: 198.64.129.55 Bcast:198.64.129.63 Mask:255.255.255.192
| Mike> eth0:1 198.64.133.69 Bcast:198.64.133.255 Mask:255.255.255.252
| Mike> eth0:1 198.64.133.70 Bcast:198.64.133.255 Mask:255.255.255.252
|
| Mike> I am attempting to run FS on eth0:1 (I cannot use eth0 as my provider does
| Mike> not guarantee the ip will not change), ipsec.conf contains:
|
| Mike> interfaces=ipsec0=eth0:1
| Mike> leftnexthop=198.64.129.1
|
| Okay, basic things:
| 1) there is nothing in KLIPS that prevents you from layering ipsec0
| on top of "eth0". You can specify "left=198.64.133.69" in the conn
| just fine, and it will work.
|
| 2) except that pluto won't listen on all interfaces.
|
| If we could just fix #2, then you wouldn't have a problem, I think.

Can you explain that?

I don't understand how what you said relates to what he asked. I'm not
saying you are wrong, just that I don't understand it.

Hugh Redelmeier
hugh_at_mimosa.com voice: +1 416 482-8253

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users_at_lists.freeswan.org
http://lists.freeswan.org/mailman/listinfo/users



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Mon Jul 29 2002 - 05:20:13 CEST