(Btw, some people didn't know BITW stands for "Bump in the Wire".)
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Joe Touch wrote:
FWIW, there are two cases I considered where tunnel decrementing might
not occur:
1) BITW
typically this is for IPsec tunnels, which are
spec'd in 4301, but which in spirit ought to follow
2003
they might also be used for range-extenders
No disagreement about host-to-host tunnels.
As said, I don't see BITW functionality specified or implied in RFC
2003. But I'd like to know what others think.
The reason why I think BITW is not important or even relevant in this
context is that such "BITW-like behaviour" is better achieved by L2
tunneling, which at the same time can also be agnostic of the various
L3 protocols that might need to be "bumped".
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
