Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com> writes: > On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 20:19 +0900, David Smith wrote: >> Vincent Bernat <bernat luffy cx> writes: >> >> > OoO En cette aube naissante du dimanche 25 mai 2008, vers 07:10, David >> > Smith <dds google com> disait: >> > >> >> Vincent, in your setup is there a strong reason you are using openswan >> >> instead of strongswan? Please share. >> > >> > Hi David! >> > >> > I have not tried StrongSWAN, so I have no reason to use OpenSWAN instead >> > of StrongSWAN. >> >> OK, could you please double-check that your configuration works with >> strongswan as well as openswan? I want to propose that we focus on one >> IKE implementation and considering the features available in strongswan, >> that it works with the most server implementations especially Windows >> 2003 and 2008 Server and that it supports smartcards the best make it a >> lead contender. Dan, what do you think of deciding on an IKE? Something >> like a bake-off? > > It mostly depends on what the various distros will be willing to > package. I don't have a strong preference since I know next to nothing > about either of them. But if we "bless" one then we have to have a > pretty convincing story as to why we chose one over the other, so that > we can tell that story to distros when they start asking why they need > to package something else that has roughly the same functionality as > something they already have. > > Is strongswan a fork of openswan? If so, was openswan upstream > reluctant to take certain patches and thus the strongswan fork? There is a lot of material about strongswan and openswan's development history in http://www.strongswan.org/docs/LinuxTag2008-strongSwan.pdf . Even a nice tree of the forks. It seems that strongswan and openswan both split away from frees/wan for different reasons: openswan was the branch that Xelerance developed for their commercial network services and strongswan was community developed to keep making a better linux IKEv1 and then v2 implementation. > Is there an intention to merge strongswan back into openswan in the > future? That sort of thing. Unfortunately the politics matter to > distros... Nobody on either list has hinted at anything like that, though anything's possible. - dds
Attachment:
pgpLix3klTvZi.pgp
Description: PGP signature