> ok, thanks, I will create some tests for the problematic cases and hopefully
> some fixes.
I'll push it once I've got a full test result.
Long term, should:
+#ifdef USE_XFRM_INTERFACE
+if (c->xfrmi != NULL && c->xfrmi->if_id != 0)
+if (!add_xfrm_interface(c, c->logger))
+
Am Donnerstag, 02. Mai 2024 17:44 CEST, schrieb Andrew Cagney
:
> On Thu, 2 May 2024 at 05:02, Wolfgang Nothdurft via Swan-dev
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am currently trying to sort out a few cases where routes and rules are
> > not handled correctly.
>
> Some internals (i.e., in theory,
On Thu, 2 May 2024 at 05:02, Wolfgang Nothdurft via Swan-dev
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am currently trying to sort out a few cases where routes and rules are
> not handled correctly.
Some internals (i.e., in theory, I'm just including this for completeness)
Part of 5.0+'s overhaul was routing.[hc]
Hi,
I am currently trying to sort out a few cases where routes and rules are
not handled correctly.
For example, with several tunnels to the same peer and auto=route on one
side, only one route is created, because route-client or route-host is
only called once.
Another Example is that the
