RE: pfkeyv2 : proto feild in address extension

No, currently not planned.

	Gerhard

--------------------------------------------
Gerhard Geßler

Communication Networks, IABG mbH
Einsteinstr. 20
85521 Ottobrunn, Germany

Telefon: +49 89 6088 - 2021
Fax: +49 89 6088 - 2845

E-Mail: [email protected] 

  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: [email protected] 
  > [mailto:[email protected]] 
  > Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 6:34 AM
  > To: Gessler Gerhard
  > Cc: [email protected]
  > Subject: RE: [Design] pfkeyv2 : proto feild in address extension
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > would the new release of ipsec6 with X.509 support have 
  > protocol level support?
  > 
  > Friday, 7 February 2003 7:06 PM
  > To: <[email protected]>, 
  > <[email protected]>
  > cc:
  > From: "Gessler Gerhard" <[email protected]>
  > Subject: RE: [Design] pfkeyv2 : proto feild in address extension
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Hi,
  > 
  > we (IABG) did not implement further pfkeyv2 code for 
  > handling port and protocal as Pluto (the FreeS/WAN 
  > IKE-daemon) was not able to negotiate SAs with that 
  > granularity at that time. I think Pluto is still only able 
  > to do this with an additional patch, if my memory serves.
  > 
  > Hope this helps,
  > 
  >  Gerhard
  > 
  > --------------------------------------------
  > Gerhard Geßler
  > 
  > Communication Networks, IABG mbH
  > Einsteinstr. 20
  > 85521 Ottobrunn, Germany
  > 
  > Telefon: +49 89 6088 - 2021
  > Fax: +49 89 6088 - 2845
  > 
  > E-Mail: [email protected]
  > 
  >   > -----Original Message-----
  >   > From: [email protected]
  >   > [mailto:[email protected]]
  >   > Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 1:12 PM
  >   > To: [email protected]
  >   > Cc: Gessler Gerhard
  >   > Subject: [Design] pfkeyv2 : proto feild in address extension
  >   >
  >   >
  >   > hi
  >   > while trying to add protocol entry into the sadb from used
  >   > space i saw in
  >   > the pfkeyv2 code that the proto element within the address
  >   > extension has
  >   > not been used.The pf key v2  RFC also gives it  as a MUST
  >   > condition, that
  >   > the transport layer protocol should be given within the
  >   > proto feild of the
  >   > address extension.
  >   >
  >   > i wanted to know why proto field within the address
  >   > extension has not been
  >   > used by freeswan to implement protocol level granularity, i
  >   > havent tried
  >   > doing this myself yet, so i wanted to enquire if there are
  >   > some problems to
  >   > it.
  >   >
  >   > thanks and regards.
  >   >
  >   > _______________________________________________
  >   > Design mailing list
  >   > [email protected]
  >   > http://lists.freeswan.org/mailman/listinfo/design
  >   >
  > 
  >