Bill,
From: Bill Fenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GRE patch
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:36:43 -0800
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > o PPTP is now identified by GRE Version Number of 1.
>
> I'm not sure I buy that. PPTP uses GRE version 1, but GRE version 1
> is not necessarily PPTP.
I used to believe so too, but I found the following paragraph in
RFC2784, which made me code that way this time.
7.1. GRE Version Numbers
This document specifies GRE version number 0. GRE version number 1 is
used by PPTP [RFC2637]. Additional GRE version numbers are assigned
by IETF Consensus as defined in RFC 2434 [RFC2434].
> > o Key field is now decoded as Payload length and Call ID in case of
> > PPTP.
>
> I didn't do this in the GRE printer because I didn't want to have
> any encapsulation-specific code in print-gre.c .
Whether this is OK or not depends on whether the first question
(i.e. GRE ver.1 is always PPTP?) is true or not. If PPTP can be safely
identified by a GRE version number of 1, my code is OK, I think.
> > o In general, length, checksum, offset are not a concern. So they
> > are printed in -vv (or more verbose) case. Version number, Key,
> > Call ID (in PPTP case), Sequence Number, Acknowledge Number
> > (in PPTP case) are now printed by default.
>
> This may be true of PPTP but may not be true of other GRE uses.
Well, the way I did may not always be true. If there's any objection,
I am happy to hear it and change it appropriately. Any other comments
on this? > everyone.
=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=
+----+----+
|.. .| | Motonori Shindo
|_~__| |
| .. |~~_~| Sr. Systems Engineer
| . | | CoSine Communications Inc.
+----+----+
C o S i n e e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Communications
=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=
-
This is the TCPDUMP workers list. It is archived at
http://www.tcpdump.org/lists/workers/index.html
To unsubscribe use mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=unsubscribe
