On Sun, 18 May 2014 07:25:22 +0500 masoom alam <masoom.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the answer. > > What are the strong points for StrongSWAN for you to select it as a > replacement for ipsec-tools? And what are the issues that you dont > like. strongSwan seems to have evolved one of the most comprehensive open source IKE daemons feature wise. It has also threaded design that takes better advantage of multiple cores than e.g. ipsec-tools. It has also relatively good plugin API, and abstraction. The aspects I don't like are also related: the abstraction is an overkill at some parts, and the multi-threading as implementation issues that require very indepth insight of the code to tune properly. In short, it could have been implemented in a little bit simpler manner. As for dmvpn phase 4 is based on IKEv2, there are not that many projects choose from. libreswan would be an option, but I feel the strongSwan code is overall in better shape. In dream world, I would probably write my own IKE in perfect way, but there's always something more important to do first, so I suppose this is not going to happen any time near future. Thus my current preference is on strongSwan. - Timo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "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
