Update README.md

README.md

@@ -52,3 +52,11 @@ No. This project is under active development. We're happy to [accept and fix iss
 ### Why aren't you using Tor?
 
 The goal of this project is not to provide anonymity, but to ensure confidentiality of network traffic while traveling. Tor introduces new risks that are unsuitable for algo's intended users. Namely, with algo, users are in control over the gateway routing their traffic. With Tor, users are at the mercy of [actively](https://www.securityweek2016.tu-darmstadt.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Group_securityweek2016/pets2016/10_honions-sanatinia.pdf) [malicious](https://chloe.re/2015/06/20/a-month-with-badonions/) [exit](https://community.fireeye.com/people/archit.mehta/blog/2014/11/18/onionduke-apt-malware-distributed-via-malicious-tor-exit-node) [nodes](https://www.wired.com/2010/06/wikileaks-documents/).
+
+### Why aren't you using Racoon, LibreSwan, or OpenSwan?
+
+Raccoon does not support IKEv2. Racoon2 supports IKEv2 but is not actively maintained. When we looked, the documentation for StrongSwan was better than the corresponding documentation for LibreSwan or OpenSwan. StrongSwan also has the benefit of a from-scratch rewrite to support IKEv2. We consider such rewrites a positive step when supporting a major new protocol version.
+
+### Why aren't you using a memory-safe or verified IKE daemon?
+
+I would, but I don't know of any. Do you? If you're in the position to fund the development of such a project, [contact us](mailto:info@trailofbits.com). We would be interested in leading such an effort. At the very least, we plan to make modifications to StrongSwan and the environment it's deployed in that prevent or significantly complicate exploitation of any latent issues.