>>>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[46] in IPv[46]
>	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[46] in ipv[46], 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
interoperate?

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."