On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 8:24 AM, Joe Touch <to...@strayalpha.com> wrote: > Some comments below, hopefully constructive/additive... > > Joe > > > > > On 2018-08-24 12:34, Templin (US), Fred L wrote: > > Hello, > > As document shepherd, I am required to perform a review. Please see below > for initial comments, and respond on the list. > > Fred > > --- > > ... > > Section by Section comments: > > ... > > Section 5.4.1: > Second paragraph, "set 94 for IPIP", I was under the impression that the > common > values for IPIP encapsulation are '4' for IPv4 and '41' for IPv6. I have not > seen '94' > appear elsewhere. Is this a common use? If not, would it be better to use > '4' or '41'? > > > 94 is defined here: > > [IDM91a] Ioannidis, J., Duchamp, D., Maguire, G., "IP-based > protocols for mobile internetworking", Proceedings of > SIGCOMM '91, ACM, September 1991. > > See RFC 1853 for a list of other "non-4" and "non-6" IP tunnels, but these > are not IP-in-IP -- that should cite RFC2003 (though, as noted in > draft-ietf-tunnels, there are some issues with the details in that RFC).
I think it's probably better to use 4 and show the example as IPv4/IP encapsulation since that's probably more common. Thanks, Tom > > Joe > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
