Subject: Re: ProxyARP and IPSec

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 10:30:42 -0700

Stephen J. Bevan wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin writes:
>  > Fair enough.  However, that does beg a question: is there any sane way 
>  > to create the pseudo-device model on top of the current model, as a 
>  > convenience layer?  That way you could get the best of both.
> 
> I assume you were using tunnel-mode IPsec and depending on exactly
> what you want to do you may be able to replace it with transport mode
> IPsec (or stay with tunnel if the extra 20 bytes of IP is not a
> problem) to handle host<->host IPsec and use gre or ipip for overlay
> network.  That way you get a virtual device (gre or ipip) you can
> route to, run OSPF on, ... etc.

<sarcasm>

What I great idea.  Now I just have to get every host I want to 
interoperate with to support a nonstandard configuration.  The scary 
part is that if I motivate it with "Linux is too stupid to handle 
standard tunnel-mode IPsec" I might actually get away with it.

</sarcasm>

Really... if saying our configuration is so screwed up that we have to 
run a different over-wire protocol isn't an admission of failure I don't 
know what is.  I suspect this contributes to the growth in OpenVPN as well.

	-hpa

-- 
VGER BF report: U 0.500003