| 1 |
Thank you for all your recommendations. I haven't settled yet on which |
| 2 |
solution to go for, but I am going to be trying a few next week. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Sébastien |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
On Apr 7, 2004, at 07:39, Jens Gutzeit wrote: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> On Wednesday 07 April 2004 04:43, Eric Sammer wrote: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>> As for IPsec and that sort of fun stuff, OpenSwan (was FreeSwan) seems |
| 12 |
>> to be one of the better options. It will do all manners of IPsec magic |
| 13 |
>> but I don't know what clients will work (at least not first hand). If |
| 14 |
>> I |
| 15 |
>> recall, IPsec is universal and most if not all clients should work in |
| 16 |
>> some capacity, but certainly don't quote me on that. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> AFAIK the used crypto algorithm is one of the important thinks you to |
| 19 |
> need |
| 20 |
> look at for the client, not all support the same algos. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> But the kernel 2.6 IPSEC is a good option, too. Works without problems |
| 23 |
> here |
| 24 |
> with racoon, though it doesn't support nat-traversal, yet. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Jens |
Archives