From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kyle McMartin Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPsec: add support for Twofish and Serpent Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:42:43 -0400 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20030815174243.GC3119@imladris.debian.net> References: <20030814180857.GA4205@netppl.fi> <20030814191259.435945cf.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030814191259.435945cf.davem@redhat.com> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 07:12:59PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > 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. > Thank you, David. I completely agree with allowing users to choose which algorithms they wish to deploy. > 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. > Again, I agree. Especially given the limitations of using the private ESP id space, since there is no new RFC delegating additions yet. Regards, -- Kyle McMartin 1024D/191FCD8A - 331A 9468 C04D 3A76 5C56 BA68 7EB7 92DF 191F CD8A 2048R/F515317D - 68 A9 0D 28 1B DF 8D 42 0F CC AF 98 A8 D5 A4 04