-On [20010316 12:45], Ruslan Ermilov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 10:50:26AM +0100, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote:
>> -On [20010316 10:43], Eugene Polovnikov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

[gif versus nos-tun]

>Yes, gif(4) works the same way, and multihomed enabled (see gifconfig(8)),
>with the exception that it always uses the IPPROTO_IPV4 (protocol 4) for
>encapsulating of IPv4 payload.

[gif preferred over nos-tun]

>I fully agree.


>> Translated, does gif do what nos-tun can do and more?  Yes?  Let's rip
>> out nos-tun and support the other well maintained solution.
>Except that it does not allow to use proto 94 (the default for nos-tun).

I'm sure we can work something out with the KAME guys over this, if it
is necessary to keep this in.  *chalks up another task*

Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven/Asmodai .oUo. asmodai@[wxs.nl|freebsd.org]
Documentation nutter/C-rated Coder BSD: Technical excellence at its best  
          D78D D0AD 244D 1D12 C9CA  7152 035C 1138 546A B867
In the dark backward and abysm of time...

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to