On Sat May 17 2014 04:25:49 AM EEST, masoom alam <masoom.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another thing that I am looking in to is that what are the pros n cons of > using ipsec-tools with opennhrp than the strongswan. I am aware that > there was some work going on on the API level integration of both > projects. But why we can't use them independently on a single system > because strongswan is essentially a feature rich implementation of > ipsec. Is there some hack available without going getting hands dirty in > the strongswan code? Earlier NAT question was also in the context of > strongswan natting support. No, I did earlier some experiments with this, but the patches are not fully operational. At the time opennhrp was started several years ago, ipsec-tools was the best looking/easiest to integrate with candidate. Though, strongSwan seems to be now superior in almost all aspects; it does have few issues that I dont like. Generally though it seems to be the current best choice. Getting NHRP working with it is a long term goal for me too. Though, I would like to update to dmvpn phase 4 architecture while at it. See also: http://sourceforge.net/p/opennhrp/mailman/message/32271201/ So yes thats the direction, but we are not there yet. And no ETA at this time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free." http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs _______________________________________________ opennhrp-devel mailing list opennhrp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opennhrp-devel
