Got to it sooner than I thought I would. It works fine. Thanks, this looks a lot cleaner! BTW, on a somewhat unrelated note, I just sent an update to bug http://wiki.strongswan.org/issues/289 with another fix I made. Is it better to send these to the mailing list rather than comment on bugs? I can open a new thread in that case.
-- Paul On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Paul Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll give it a shot at latest Monday. Thanks! > > -- > Paul > > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Martin Willi <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi Paul, >> >> > [...] which I tracked down to the tsi of the Cisco peer not returning a >> > port number in its reply. >> >> I see. >> >> > Using the patch below, I was able to accommodate this omission. Does >> > this seem like a reasonable change, perhaps behind a configuration >> > flag? >> >> Thanks for the patch, looks reasonable. I don't think a configuration >> option is necessary, as long as we install the more restrictive >> selector. >> >> Instead of just checking the port, I think we can handle this in a more >> generic way by selecting the subset of the proposed and the returned >> selector. This should work in any case, in is actually even simpler. >> Please try the attached patch, if that works, I can push it to master. >> >> Best regards >> Martin >> > >
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.strongswan.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
