Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:48:04 +0100 | From | Blizbor <> | Subject | Re: 2.6 native IPsec implementation question |
| |
;) My question wasn't "how does ipsec rules looks" but "why its implemented such a way". These almost exactly are rules I want to implement. But, when you run tcpdump -nni eth0 you can see ESP traffic _and_ one direction of something going through IPsec. Imagine, that on eth0 five IPsec tunnels are "ended" and only one I wish to allow tcp/389. It seems not possible to just allow tcp/389 from only one VPN because IP addresses are changing daily in all 5 remote locations. Moreover "-i eth0 -j DROP" blocks IPsec traffic ... (or -o eth0 i don't remember direction)
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>2. Why IPsec in 2.6 doesn't creates entries in the route tables ? >> >> > >Because it doesnot create a device ipsecN? > > And thats the issue - WHY it is implemented such a way ? Which developement considerations caused that choice ?
Regards, Blizbor
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |