Subject: Re: ipip and gif
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/18/2000 22:20:59
>>>We should just flush ipip in favor of gif.
>>i disagree. ipip should be deprecated ip protocol 4 (ip in ip, as
>>manufactured by the ipip interface) should be turned into another mode
>>of operation for the gre interface.
>>i think the profusion of tunneling interfaces is kinda silly...unless
>>there's some subtle differences to them that i don't understand.
> You are mixing up sometihng. gre has nothing to do with the issue
> I've raised.
> gif: IP proto #4 and #41, IPv in IPv
> ipip: IP proto #4, IPv4 in IPv4
> IPv4 in IPv4 almost identical to gif
> gre: IP proto #47, RFC1702 (VERY DIFFERENT)
47 *and* 55.
but if gif can do ipv in ipv, then yes, you are correct. ipip
should die in favor of gif. i was just musing that tunneling was
tunneling and that too many tunneling interface options was bound to
be confusing. i am confused.
but...doesn't gre do ipv6 stuff? it certainly purports to (by
assigning itself an ipv6 address when configured for ipv4).
aside: what's the actual difference between ipip and gif? can they
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
email@example.com * "ah! i see you have the internet
firstname.lastname@example.org (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
email@example.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."