On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:42:32 -0400 (EDT)
Paul Wouters wrote:
> --up plus --route makes no sense to me? Since up is add + start?
It doesn't make sense to me either - but --up is not add + start, it's
only working for already added connections.
> In terms of internals, a route is really the
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
| Are you mising up ipsec auto --route with auto=ondemand?
I hypothesized that ipsec.conf: conn: auto=route/ondemand might be the
same as --route/--ondemand I read the documentation and found that not to
be the case. At least for ipsec auto,
| From: Paul Wouters
| On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
|
| > So it sounds as if auto=route is obsolete.
|
| Yes.
|
| > But uses are scattered through
| > our tree. I assume that they should be updated. Any objection?
Shall I fix this? (Maybe not: see below.)
| > In the case
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 23:56:44 -0400 (EDT)
Paul Wouters wrote:
> Are you mising up ipsec auto --route with auto=ondemand? I wasn't
> aware we obsoleted it there too. But I see we support ipsec auto
> --ondemand, so I guess we did. So in that case I guess we can update
> it all to use --ondemand in
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 22:56:22
From: D. Hugh Redelmeier
To: Libreswan Development List
Subject: [Swan-dev] "route" vs "ondemand"
According to ipsec.conf(5)
The option ondemand used to be called
route
So
According to ipsec.conf(5)
The option ondemand used to be called
route
So it sounds as if auto=route is obsolete. But uses are scattered through
our tree. I assume that they should be updated. Any objection?
In the case of ipsec_auto(8), --ondemand is the same as --add then
