From: John A. Sullivan III (John.Sullivan_at_nexusmgmt.com)
Date: Wed Jul 31 2002 - 12:01:52 CEST
Thank you, Mathieu. I plan to be heavily testing NAT-T this week and
next for a possible production implementation. Does this patch enable
us to use Free S/WAN 1.98b or must we still use 1.97? - John
On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 03:26, mlafon_at_arkoon.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > After reading all the documentation, I am a little confused about the
> > differences between the recent additions to the X.509 patch at
> > www.strongsec.com and the NAT-T patch at open-source.arkoon.net. The
> > X.509 patch appears to enable the DHCP-over-IPSec and I thought it
> > implemented NAT-T but I don't see much about the NAT-T in the docs.
> > Does it do the encapsulation in UDP or is that what the arkoon patch is
> > for? Where does one use one vs. the other? Thanks - John
>
> No, the X.509 patch does not implement NAT-T. For NAT-T, you must use
> the patch available at open-source.arkoon.net.
>
> If you (or others) want to test NAT-T, i attach the current bugfix patch
> for NAT-T 0.2. Please apply it (above NAT-T 0.2) before reporting any
> bugs.
>
> (See attached file: pluto_NAT-T_0.2_020717.diff)
>
> --
> Mathieu Lafon - Arkoon Network Security
>
-- John A. Sullivan III Group Technology Director Nexus Management +1 207-985-7880 John.Sullivan_at_nexusmgmt.com_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users_at_lists.freeswan.org http://lists.freeswan.org/mailman/listinfo/users
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 21:01:34 CEST