Re: [devel-ipsec] Re: [PATCH ipsec-next v5 3/8] xfrm: allow migration from UDP encapsulated to non-encapsulated ESP

[Yan Yan]

Hi Antony,

I am happy to be added with a Tested-by tag. I set up a few more tests
 to ensure full coverage. For the record, I verified the following 16
cases from Android userspace and with your patch, covering all address
family combinations (v4→v4, v4→v6, v6→v4, v6→v6) for each:

- Encap ↔ Non-Encap
- Encap ↔ Encap
- Non-Encap ↔ Non-Encap
- Non-Encap ↔ Encap

Everything works as expected.

Also I am following the discussion of "omit-to-clear" vs.
"omit-to-inherit" strategy on the other thread ([PATCH ipsec-next v5
8/8] xfrm: add XFRM_MSG_MIGRATE_STATE for single SA migration). I'm
not sure if that will result in any changes to your implementation,
but I'm looking forward to the v6 patch!

On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 7:41 AM Antony Antony <antony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Yan,
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 07:28:06PM -0800, Yan Yan wrote:
> > Hi Antony,
> >
> > Sorry for the late reply. We’ve prototyped this and confirmed that
> > Android can be changed to explicitly provide the encap_tmpl in the
> > MIGRATE requests. Also we are excited to have kernel support for
> > encap-to-non-encap migration.
>
> Thanks for the confirmation and prototype testing. I will send out v6 soon.
>
> Would  you like to add any tags Tested or Reviewd...
>
> -antony



--
--
Best,
Yan