Subject: Re: ipip and gif
To: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: None <email@example.com>
Date: 04/19/2000 13:43:39
>> I'm confused too :-) also I'm SO amused that we have this many
>> protocols that want ip proto #41 or #4. (see comment in attachment)
>> I'm now testing cleaner protocol dispatching mechanism in KAME tree,
>> I plan to bring this into netbsd-current sometime this week.
>41, too, eh? i hadn't noticed that one, but a simple grep on
>/etc/protocols showed it to me. :)
>it also showed me 98, which is rfc1241 encapsulation. we're not doing
>that too, are we?
we do not have any code for ip proto #98.
(correct me if I'm wrong). There's a line in in.h though:
#define IPPROTO_ENCAP 98 /* encapsulation header */
>> - when you configure gif, you'd configure the inner address pair
>> with ifconfig(8), and outer address pair with gifconfig(8).
>more like gre...
yup, greconfig(8) and gifconfig(8) look quite similar.
>> gif allows more flexible configuration. and i personally think
>> gif makes more sense, since outer protocol header has almost nothing
>> to do with inner tunnel configuration.
>true, since one ought to be able to encapsulate ipv4 in ipv6 or
anyway we may need to keep pseudo-device ipip in the tree,
for people who stick to it (when she/he would like to just keep the
old configuration). we may want to remove ipip from GENERIC
configuratoin for simplicity, though.