Hi Carsten,
Thanks for your responce and please excuse my late reply too. I'm still
working on the changes and will make a pull request as soon as I am ready.
It will be a separate module which handles the IPSec tunnel creation/tear
down, so that ims_register_pcscf won't be polluted with platform specific
functionality. You are right, that new module can be ifdef-ed and replaced
with something *BSD specific or whatever OS someone wants to use.
Best regards,
Tsvetomir
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Carsten Bock <carsten(a)ng-voice.com> wrote:
Hi Tsvetomir,
sorry for the late reply. I assume this mail got lost a bit in the
days of Astricon. I even asked Daniel about this mail during Astricon,
but he hadn't seen it yet. Right now, I'm officially on holiday....
Can you please provide a Pull-Request for the changes?
From my perspective, it is likely fine to have a Linux-Only module, it
might not be the first one. If you can encapsulate your extensions
with some IFDEF's, so the functionality can be disabled on non-Linux,
then that would be fine with me.
It would be great, if Daniel or anyone else from the Management-Group
could answer or comment this one as well??
Thanks,
Carsten
2017-10-04 10:14 GMT-04:00 Tsvetomir Dimitrov <tsv.dimitrov(a)gmail.com>om>:
Hello,
I am working on a functionality which handles ipsec tunel creation for
VoLTE
registration and I'd like to contribute it to the project. However the
code
is heavily Linux specific - uses xfrm framework, so it won't compile on
distribution with older kernels and definitely won't compile on *BSD.
How problematic is this? How to handle this implementation so that it
gets
merged?
Right now I can see two options:
1. Implement the functionality in ims_register_pcscf.
2. Implement separate ipsec module and handle the tunel creation/tear
down
from the configuration.
The first solution is definitely the easiest one for implementation, but
after my patch the module won't be as portable as it is now and I'm
afraid
my patch will be rejected.
The second one separates the platform specific code in separate module
and
won't affect ims_register_pcscf. However I need data from
ims_usrloc_pcscf,
which is not accessible from the configuration. Also, writing separate
module for a limited IPSEC handling seems like a overkill for me.
What's your opinion?
Best regards,
Tsvetomir
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
--
Carsten Bock
CEO (Geschäftsführer)
ng-voice GmbH
Millerntorplatz 1
20359 Hamburg / Germany
http://www.ng-voice.com
mailto:carsten@ng-voice.com
Office +49 40 5247593-40
Fax +49 40 5247593-99
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Hamburg, HRB 120189
Geschäftsführer: Carsten Bock
Ust-ID: DE279344284
Hier finden Sie unsere handelsrechtlichen Pflichtangaben:
http://www.ng-voice.com/imprint/
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org