Subject: Re: Reminder that we are supporting two parallel IPsec implementations
To: Thor Lancelot Simon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 09/12/2003 13:31:57
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> Matt pointed out how PF_KEY could be fixed to not have the datagram
> size restriction in question. I think that's the right thing to do; but
> either way, I think any change like this really, really should be coordinated
> with the fast-ipsec maintainers so that the behaviour is consistent no matter
> what the kernel provider of the interface is.
This point I do agree with.