Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] StrongSWAN vs OpenSwan

[Dietmar R. <die...@gm...>]

2007/9/9, Heiko Zuerker <he...@zu...>:
>
> On Thu, September 6, 2007 14:21, Jasper Siepkes wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> > I noted that OpenSwan was recently replaced by StrongSwan. Out of
> > curiosity; Why was this ? I saw an other thread on the mailinglist which
> > stated that strongswan was built on top of openswan with extra features.
> > As far as I know, this is not the case and were both forked from the
> > freeswan project (I Could be missing something tough..).
> >
> > I'm by no means a *Swan expert, but this comparison looks to be leaning
> > to Openswan: http://wiki.openswan.org/index.php/Openswan/FeatureComparison
> >
> >
> > Yes its on the openswan page :-) But StrongSwan
> > http://www.strongswan.org/ linkes to the feature comparison. I doubt
> > they would link to it if they would find it unfair.
>
> Unfortunately OpenSwan 3.0 (which is the base for this comparison) is not
> released yet:
>
> Quote from http://www.openswan.org/code/ :
> ----------------
> Openswan 3.0.xx should be consider highly experimental and very unstable.
> Do not use it.
> ----------------

I'm running the new (custom made) testing release using strongswan in
a site-2-site tunnel mode (strongswan-cisco) and I had no problem
sofar.

Didi

BTW:
I had to remove the comment from "extra/pptp-conntrack-nat" in
built/scripts/config in oder to get shorewall running.