From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPsec: add support for Twofish and Serpent Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:12:59 -0700 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20030814191259.435945cf.davem@redhat.com> References: <20030814180857.GA4205@netppl.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: pp@netppl.fi, kyle@debian.org, jmorris@intercode.com.au, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Pekka Savola In-Reply-To: Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:25:11 +0300 (EEST) Pekka Savola wrote: > Very much agree. I totally disagree, choice is everything. That's why we allow NULL crypto algorithms. Not doing so turns this into a political thing, which I decidedly do not want our IPSEC implementation to be all about. And therefore I will add the patch. > Also, I could be missing something, but I think it takes much more to add > an encryption algorithm than what the patch does?!?! If you use the netlink based IPSEC implementation, any crypto algorithm is supported fully the moment it is added to crypto/. When using pfkeyv2 sockets, yes you have to assign a number and then the APP has to be aware of it. This just shows how bogus it is to use fixed numbers instead of strings to select crypto algorithms.