From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755001AbXD2HOi (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 03:14:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754932AbXD2HOi (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 03:14:38 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.172]:64873 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754519AbXD2HOg (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 03:14:36 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=VAi2qEu54kbHYV1DllgWkjtQWgciLeHRZ72c+8q55QB4Mb5tmRf6BHzRN890zVuXqZiQmjKcOHrw8uIkrE0Zcse50rmnloxBwrupi6/81axMRYWiguNCpLGeKSfnFeSvuMKpnhf508Mn34O0wIXWqhpTv8wXB8cbXpwe6udTBrg= Message-ID: <5a4c581d0704290014p1ee107a7jb4c6737f51ef8bb8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:14:35 +0200 From: "Alessandro Suardi" To: "David Miller" Subject: Re: [2.6.21-git2] sk_buff changes break Cisco VPN client Cc: rdreier@cisco.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20070428.202405.14973612.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <5a4c581d0704281338w28227b13p52f3043a56af4945@mail.gmail.com> <20070428.202405.14973612.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 4/29/07, David Miller wrote: > From: Roland Dreier > Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:05:27 -0700 > > > However I can suggest vpnc (http://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~massar/vpnc/) > > as an alternative. I'm not forced to use Cisco VPN access any more, > > but when I tried it, vpnc was tons better than the Cisco product. > > Also, and I know this might be a COMPLETE SHOCK to some people, but we > do have a full in-kernel IPSEC stack and using it with openswan to > connect to VPNs works perfectly fine. > > I use it every day. > > It's quite amusing that people use a userland IPSEC implementation > via VPNC, in spite of this. > Have a look here https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/dulug/2007-March/010792.html where someone seems to be in my same boat. No, openswan/IPSEC does not work in all configurations with Cisco VPN concentrators - and by Murphy's law, I'm in the non-working configuration. Hope this clarifies the reason I asked. And if anyone out there is in doubt about it, I absolutely hate having to rebuild an out of kernel module every time I build a kernel, crossing fingers it doesn't break (again). I would use *anything* else. --alessandro "Did you get married but forgot to get divorced ?" (Danny and Dusty, 'The Good Old Days')