Thanks Timo and Lee for the detailed answers.
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Timo Teras <timo.te...@iki.fi> wrote:
> 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
