On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Francis Dupont wrote: > > > > In your previous mail you wrote: > > > > It frustrated me a great deal that IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling with the same > > protocol number 41 could be used for various things: > > > > 1. configured tunneling > > > > 2. automatic tunneling > > 2.1 automatic tunneling with compatible addresses > > 2.2 6to4 > > 2.3 ISATAP > > (more to come?) > > > > => oh, you forgot 6over4 ! > > > In any case, I think the reusability of type 41 is a feature, not a bug. It means we > only have to persuade ISPs and corporate security people to open up one IPv4 protocol > type to enable all forms of 6in4 tunnels.
Yes, it can be seen as a feature. Going back, though, it would probably have made sense to reserve 32 bits in the format, including an 8-bit "sub-type" identifier for those mechanisms. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
