| To: | pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx (Pekka Savola), netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: v6-in-v4 IPsec and NAT traversal |
| From: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:36:43 +1100 |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403131452280.25018-100000@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | Core |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | tin/1.7.4-20031226 ("Taransay") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.25-1-686-smp (i686)) |
Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Is this planned? Are there issues with "native" support why it would > not be feasible? http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-net/msg08197.html > Avoiding double encapsulation would be IMHO really useful, and several > other implementations are already reported to allow this. There is no double encapsulation. Using an SIT tunnel inside a transport v4 SA is equivalent to a v6/v4 SA in terms of overhead. However, you do lose the ability to negotiate the selector but you can always use netfilter to fix it up. -- Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ ) Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [patch/RFC] networking menus, Randy.Dunlap |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] Do not include linux/irq.h from linux/netpoll.h, Ian Campbell |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: v6-in-v4 IPsec and NAT traversal, Pekka Savola |
| Next by Thread: | Re: v6-in-v4 IPsec and NAT traversal, Michael Richardson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |