Hi all. At first, sorry if I'm sending this message to wrong mailing lists.. My first question is: Has anyone tried using MIPL (mipd) or NEPL (nepd) and HIPL (hipd) at the same time in the one machine? If not, what do you think, how much work might it need to get a kernel where them both work at the same time? How much and what kind of modifications might hipd and nepd applications need? I know that XFRM is used also for other extension headers, such as MIPv6 processing besides IPsec. HIPL adds BEET to XFRM, and MIPL uses it at least also for route optimization. Does MIPL use XFRM for some other unmentioned purposes also? I have compared NEPL and HIPL patches and tried to apply them both to Linux kernels. Both NEPL and HIPL need to patch the same files, so patching order certainly effects to the result. I do not know how much it mixes things up, that NEPL and HIPL patches are not for the same kernels (for example 2.6.16 in NEMO and 2.6.16.5 in HIP). IPsec BEET mode is included to the kernel since 2.6.19, so this might help integrating in the future.. One example problem occurs when patching XFRM related files: If a original kernel file has code lines code_original... NEPL patches modifies it to #ifdef CONFIG_XFRM_ENHANCEMENT code_NEMO... #else code_original... #endif and HIPL patches modifies it to code_HIP... If HIPL patch is applied after NEPL patch, the result will be: #ifdef CONFIG_XFRM_ENHANCEMENT code_NEMO... #else code_HIP... #endif But if CONFIG_XFRM_ENHANCEMENT is defined, codeHIP are not executed. It is of course possible to add HIPL patches (codeHIP) inside #ifdef's that NEPL uses. I don't have much knowlegde about XFRM and kernels, and at this point, any ideas and help are welcome! Thank you. If someone is interested, I can give more details (and questions) I have found out. -Teemu Väisänen