[strongSwan-dev] strongswan PFP support
allenlu1212 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 17 03:15:27 CET 2013
Thank you for your generous reply. I have a question about the field 'spi'
in the 'tmpl' structure. When an IPsec policy triggers the establishment of
an SA, charon always
tries to negotiate a CHILD_SA, and then sends the new SA and also the
updated policy (adding the 'tmpl' structure) to the kernel through netlink
or PF_key socket. But, at this time, seems the charon doesn't assign the
field 'tmpl->id.spi' (with the proper value from structure ipsec_sa_t),
jsut leave the field 'spi' with the value 0? If strongswan doesn't support
PFP, there is 1:1 mapping between the policy and SA bundle, right ? So,
giving the 'tmpl->id.spi' with the proper value will make sense when
updating the policy after a new SA has been established, right ? Any other
considerations about transferring the field 'tmpl->id.spi' between charon
2013/1/10 Martin Willi <martin at strongswan.org>
> > From the strongswan view, how to treat this PFP feature? Is there any
> > plan to implement this PFP feature for strongswan?
> We currently have no plans to implement such a functionality.
> > Does also Linux Kernel need to be updated to support PFP
> > feature?
> Probably not. XFRM sends the details of the packet triggering the SA to
> the keying daemon. Based on that, charon could negotiate SAs specific to
> this traffic selector.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Dev