[Fwd: [Openswan dev] ANNOUNCE: Openswan 1.0.0 Released]

[Lamar Owen]

On Saturday 03 January 2004 01:03 pm, Dax Kelson wrote:
> The Super FreeSWAN patch has morphed into a full blown project of it's
> own complete with road maps, mailing lists, CVS, and an IRC channel.

> It would be very nice to get Openswan v2.10 included with FC2.

v2.10?  They just released 1.0.0, with 2.0.0 in development.  Why do we need 
this when the KAME stuff is working and works with 2.6?  KAME being what RHEL 
is using, why would OpenSWAN be needed in Core (maybe in Alternatives, since 
it _is_ and alternative IPsec implementation).  If you need DPD and NAT-T, I 
guess you would want this.  For straight IPsec, or PPP over L2TP over IPsec 
w/X.509, KAME plus the RHEL 2.4 kernel or the 2.6 kernel seems to get the job 
done.

Just curious as to the reason why; I looked at Super FreeS/WAN before getting 
White Box loaded here (which has the same patches and ipsec-tools as RHEL3).  
The KAME config is vastly different than the SFSWAN config.  So, tell me why 
I should completely redo everything: if it has a Can't-Live-Without feature, 
then, tell us.
-- 
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu