EoIP is non-standard, and while multiple platforms have it, they are
probably not compatible.
The main reason to do EoIP is if you need the entire layer2 header. I
use it now and then to default a device, then bridge it's port with an
EOIP tunnel back to my office so that I can access it from my laptop on
it's default IP.
You can also carry a full size 1500 byte packet on the EoIP tunnel....it
will be fragmented on the outer layer so there's an efficiency penalty
in doing so, so if everything works with a shorter MTU then use a
shorter MTU. I switched a VPN to an EOIP tunnel for a library whose
SonicWall broke PMTUD and thus there was packet loss on the tunneled
traffic until I switched them to EoIP.
The other reason to do EoIP is that it's stupid simple.
Downsides: EoIP is insecure. Supposedly it's more cpu intensive than
other types of tunnels, but in practice I haven't noticed.
On 10/19/2015 2:28 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
More interested in eoip comments, but when are these two bad ideas,
eoip with the ipsec in particular.
I have two scenarios where eoip will be necessary to maintain upstream
static routing between providers, one tunnel over the interwebs and
one tunnel over our network since our providers are geographically
isolated.
I'm having a hard time figuring out if eoip is up and coming or dying,
everything I read says its new but the documents are old, mikrotik
documents indicate it's proprietary but Cisco docs mention it.
