[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Jim Thompson <jim at netgate dot com>
 To:  Dinesh Nair <dinesh at alphaque dot com>
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] False sense of (IPsec)urity?
 Date:  Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:51:23 -1000
Dinesh Nair wrote:

>
> On 11/09/05 08:10 Jim Thompson said the following:
>
>> So, it will all get tested, and fixed if necessary, and either 
>> m0n0wall will go to 6.0 or the Padlock support will get backported to 
>> 4.11.  
>
>
> i doubt padlock support will be backported to 4.11, given the recent 
> release of 6.0-RELEASE. i think the 4.x branch will be left for decay 
> in a while, with only bugfix/security updates.

If you're looking for the 4BSD maintainers to add it, then I agree that 
its unlikely in the extreme, but Manuel could do the work, and then m0n0 
1.2.N could support same.   Thats a much shorter path than waiting for 
m0n0wall to run on FreeBSD 6.

>> Either way, m0n0wall should be able to pickup support for the fastest 
>> (for the money) AES accelerator I can find, which can only help IPSEC 
>
>
> i'm experimenting with porting over m0n0wall to 6.0 to see if that 
> makes any difference. i should have a beta image out by the weekend 
> for prelim testing. note this is just a prototype and is adjunct to 
> the M0n0wall future discussion we had on these here lists.

Yeah, I knew about that.   There is always 'pfTiny' as a base for a 
future m0n0wall as well.

Jim