[Swan-dev] expirimental : ipsec device/interface aka XFRMi
antony at phenome.org
Fri Jan 24 15:47:25 UTC 2020
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 09:10:40AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 07:49, Paul Wouters <paul at nohats.ca> wrote:
> > > On Jan 24, 2020, at 13:44, Andrew Cagney <andrew.cagney at gmail.com>
> > >> They do. no = 0, yes = 1 and the man page does not explain this.
> > >
> > > So if I specify:
> > > ipsec-interface=no
> > > I get interface 0, and:
> > No, you get no interface because 0 means no. This is because the current Linux implementation uses IF_ID which does not see 0 as a valid ID.
> Should it be =%no - since reserved tokens mostly start with %; then =0
> can be an error?
%n is an argument for loose enum + string.
This is loose enum + int. With %no would allow hostname "no" which is not
> > > ipsec-interface=1
> > > I get a random interface?
> > You get ipsec1, same as when specifying “yes”.
> I think that's confusing. Especially if we've reserved %random or
> %unique or something as a future enhancement.
my plan is unique note no %
> > In the future, %unique will mean get a (pseudo)random interface name.
> > I’m not sure what happens when you pick “10”, as I was confused about the numbers maybe being in hex ?
> If I use =10, do I see xfrmi10 (or what ever) when listing interfaces?
My intention for no|yes|<n> is to reduce confusion for a simple use case.
<n> is for advanced use case.
current default is "no", however, I assume soon default will be "yes" and
no|<n> would be advanced use case.
More information about the Swan-dev