<mtrbot-ml>
[mattermost] <sb10q> whitequark: smoltcp ipv6 seems to work fine :) nice
<mtrbot-ml>
[mattermost] <sb10q> cr1901_modern: have you ever used IPsec on windows?
<cr1901_modern>
sb10q: I'm afraid not
<mtrbot-ml>
[mattermost] <sb10q> the linux configuration with ``ip xfrm`` seems reasonable enough (even if poorly documented), but idk how painful it is on windows
<mtrbot-ml>
[mattermost] <sb10q> the idea is to put devboards on a v6 network with ipsec
<mtrbot-ml>
[mattermost] <sb10q> as I understand it, this is the only configuration where the router adds/removes encryption and the packets are cleartext on the private LAN
<cr1901_modern>
>Mandatory part of IPv6 stack Oh, wheee...
<cr1901_modern>
that sounds like an absolute blast to implement
<mtrbot-ml>
[mattermost] <sb10q> yeah they made a mess of it
<mtrbot-ml>
[mattermost] <sb10q> but that config with ip xfmr seems okay
<cr1901_modern>
did wq implement ipsec for smoltcp, or is the idea that you want the encryption to be gone by the time it reaches a smoltcp device?
<mtrbot-ml>
[mattermost] <sb10q> no
<mtrbot-ml>
[mattermost] <sb10q> ipsec in the device sounds complicated, so the idea is to handle the encryption entirely in the linux router
<cr1901_modern>
Hrm, while this doesn't really affect you or me, this sounds like something that indeed cannot be configured on consumer ipv6 router :/
<mtrbot-ml>
[mattermost] <sb10q> it can be configured on the lab router, and it can be configured on linux clients. the consumer home routers don't need to be involved
<mtrbot-ml>
[mattermost] <sb10q> the question is windows...
<cr1901_modern>
It looks like Windows Server provides a GUI and it's _slightly_ complicated to set up, but not a nightmare
<cr1901_modern>
but I don't have Windows Server, and I don't think I could easily dupe your setup here
<cr1901_modern>
sb10q: From reading ipv6now.com, ESP is the header you want; the Authentication header doesn't provide encryption
<whitequark>
ZirconiumX: nmigen's elaboration process is currently actually quite slow
<whitequark>
I made a design mistake that should be relatively easy to fix that results in that
<ZirconiumX>
Okay, fair
<_whitenotifier>
[nmigen] whitequark commented on issue #256: Consider adding a --platform (or -p) option to generate - https://git.io/JeBNn
<_whitenotifier>
[nmigen] cr1901 commented on issue #256: Consider adding a --platform (or -p) option to generate - https://git.io/JeBNR
attie has quit [Quit: WeeChat 2.6]
mauz555 has joined #m-labs
mauz555 has quit []
mumptai has joined #m-labs
<_whitenotifier>
[nmigen] RobertBaruch commented on issue #256: Consider adding a --platform (or -p) option to generate - https://git.io/JeBAm
<_whitenotifier>
[nmigen] whitequark commented on issue #256: Consider adding a --platform (or -p) option to generate - https://git.io/JeBAG
<ZirconiumX>
Okay, so, evidently I'm doing the metaprogramming wrong, because inspecting the output Verilog shows that I'm not getting 16 of my PIPE Records, but only 1.
<ZirconiumX>
Because nMigen thinks the records refer to the same instance? Is this a bit where I need to deep-copy?