From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Samad Subject: Re: status of netfilter+ipsec patches Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:55:12 +1000 Message-ID: <20050329085512.GG8987@samad.com.au> References: <42289633.6020804@sysgo.com> <424853B8.9090607@shorewall.net> <42485FD2.3020508@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Y1L3PTX8QE8cb2T+" Return-path: To: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42485FD2.3020508@trash.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org --Y1L3PTX8QE8cb2T+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 09:49:38PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > Tom Eastep wrote: > >I second this question -- I'm giving a presentation about Shorewall and > >IPSEC next month at Linuxfest Northwest and I'd like to be able to give > >the audience the current status of the patches. >=20 > Read last weeks netdev archive, turns out the whole idea of skipping > netfilter hooks until all IPsec processing is done was wrong. I don't > know how to solve it yet. So which ipsec patches have to be applied ? to 2.6.11 >=20 > Regards > Patrick >=20 >=20 --Y1L3PTX8QE8cb2T+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCSRfwkZz88chpJ2MRAmO+AJ48werFTVVpNlCSh78ea2mB6xqHNACdHz12 2vtDBkSDzdIRkPL/1nilKt4= =ikfI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Y1L3PTX8QE8cb2T+--