[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling

To: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:49:55 +0200 (EET)
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, rhousley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, shollenbeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050112222437.GC14280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20050112222437.GC14280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
After struggling with various userland VPN solutions for a while (and
failing to make IPSEC tunnel mode do what I want), I decided to just
implement ethernet-in-IP tunneling in the kernel and let IPSEC transport
mode handle the rest.

There appeared to be an RFC for ethernet-in-IP already, RFC 3378, so I
just implemented that.  It's very simple -- slap a 16-bit header (0x3000,
which is 4 bits of etherip version number and 12 bits of padding) onto
the beginning of the ethernet packet, and then wrap it in an IP packet.

EtherIP is not recommended for use; it's an Informational RFC.

Is there a particular reason why GRE tunnel is not sufficient? AFAICS, it provides all the benefits of Ethernet-in-IP, is very commonly deployed, and only has 4 bytes of overhead.

And if GRE is not sufficient, the next step would be L2TP.

Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>