From ilug-admin@linux.ie  Mon Sep  2 13:14:40 2002
Return-Path: <ilug-admin@linux.ie>
Delivered-To: zzzz@localhost.netnoteinc.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1634847C79
	for <zzzz@localhost>; Mon,  2 Sep 2002 07:42:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from phobos [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for zzzz@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 02 Sep 2002 12:42:31 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lugh.tuatha.org (root@lugh.tuatha.org [194.125.145.45]) by
    dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g82AEwZ28230 for
    <zzzz-ilug@spamassassin.taint.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:14:58 +0100
Received: from lugh (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lugh.tuatha.org
    (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29406; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:14:15 +0100
Received: from mail.magicgoeshere.com (nw152-60.indigo.ie [194.125.152.60]
    (may be forged)) by lugh.tuatha.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29324
    for <ilug@linux.ie>; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:13:49 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: lugh.tuatha.org: Host nw152-60.indigo.ie
    [194.125.152.60] (may be forged) claimed to be mail.magicgoeshere.com
Received: from bagend.magicgoeshere.com (ts15-158.dublin.indigo.ie
    [194.125.176.158]) by mail.magicgoeshere.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id
    15675FB4F for <ilug@linux.ie>; Mon,  2 Sep 2002 10:57:18 +0100 (IST)
Received: by bagend.magicgoeshere.com (Postfix, from userid 501) id
    BE05D61DEF; Mon,  2 Sep 2002 11:00:17 +0100 (IST)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:00:17 +0100
From: Niall O Broin <niall@linux.ie>
To: ilug@linux.ie
Message-Id: <20020902100017.GB2041@bagend.makalumedia.com>
Reply-To: ilug@linux.ie
Mail-Followup-To: Niall O Broin <niall@linux.ie>, ilug@linux.ie
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i
Subject: [ILUG] VPN implementation
Sender: ilug-admin@linux.ie
Errors-To: ilug-admin@linux.ie
X-Mailman-Version: 1.1
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Irish Linux Users' Group <ilug.linux.ie>
X-Beenthere: ilug@linux.ie

I need to setup a VPN between a few sites. From what I've read, the the
choices come down (on the Linux side) to IPsec (using FreeSWAN) or CIPE.
It seems that FreeSWAN is 'better', being an implementation of IPsec which
is a standard. However, CIPE does the job as well for Linux clients and is
somewhat simpler to setup. 

The problem is that it's not a pure Linux situation - a couple of the sites
run OS-X. I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to find an implementation of
IPsec for OS-X, but I think CIPE is Linux only.

So, the question is for those of you have have implemented BOTH - is there a
significant difference in setup time and hassle between CIPE and FreeSWAN ?
If CIPE is going to be much easier than dealing with FreeSWAN (and whatever
on the OS-X sites) then I'll simply get a Linux box for each of the remote
sites - with the low price of hardware, it doesn't take much more complexity
in software to make buying hardware to use simpler software economic.



Niall

-- 
Irish Linux Users' Group: ilug@linux.ie
http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug for (un)subscription information.
List maintainer: listmaster@linux.ie

