From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13]: Netfilter IPsec support Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:34:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20051122.143438.84749134.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20051120163128.16666.38111.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: kaber@trash.net In-Reply-To: <20051120163128.16666.38111.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> 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: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Patrick McHardy Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:31:28 +0100 > This is the latest netfilter/IPsec patchset. Its purpose is to make > IPsec look as much as a normal tunnel device to netfilter as possible > and to enable NAT support. I think there are some of these patches that we can merge in right now into net-2.6.16... I want to do this so that Patrick doesn't have to repost 13 or so patches every time one of the parts still under discussion gets changed. Actually, it seems the only part under discussion is how to avoid extension header reparsing and routing re-lookups on the ipv6 side. That could be fixed by a follow-on patch and is not %100 necessary for initial integration in my opinion. Can I get agreement on that? Patrick sends me a dump of the current state of his patch set right now, we put that into net-2.6.16, and fix problems with followon patches. Ok?