lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:0.052 / U:0.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site