Seb, If you could connect your laptop to SWAN via both ethernet and WLAN using punchin, is there any reason why the command to create tunnel should be any different (aside from the IP addresses)?
Ideally I'd be able to have the same IP address for both the LAN and WLAN connection (maybe it would be assigned to me by an 802.1x box) but that's probably wishful thinking. But it would allow the tunnel to survive while I change from one network medium to another. The latter is something that's perhaps more easily done at home, if you have the same box issuing DHCP addresses for your WLAN as well as LAN, where you might desire to use the same IP address for both MAC addresses as they belong to the same laptop. I'd almost go so far as to say that having any hard wired association between a tunnel and a link device, whether it is in the kernel or supplied by the user, is likely to get in the way of making things easy to use in the future. Which leads me to wonder if there will be a functionality regression here by requiring that there be a fixed association between a link device and a tunnel? Darren
