>>	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
>vice-versa.

	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.

itojun