netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch]: ipv6 tunnel for MIPv6

To: vnuorval@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [patch]: ipv6 tunnel for MIPv6
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 00:38:58 +0900 (JST)
Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, ajtuomin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, lpetande@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jagana@xxxxxxxxxx, kumarkr@xxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305301735340.3584-200000@rhea.tcs.hut.fi>
Organization: USAGI Project
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305301712300.3584-200000@rhea.tcs.hut.fi> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305301735340.3584-200000@rhea.tcs.hut.fi>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305301735340.3584-200000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Fri, 
30 May 2003 18:00:55 +0300 (EEST)), Ville Nuorvala <vnuorval@xxxxxxxxxx> says:

> there was a while ago some talk about an xfrm6_tunnel driver IIRC. I don't
> know how far along the project is and what capabilities the xfrm6_tunnels
> will have, but in the mean time I have an ipv6-in-ipv6 tunnel driver
> specified in RFC 2473 to offer you. If the xfrm6_tunnels are going to
> support ipv6-in-ipv6 you also might find the code useful.

The code exists in our repository.
Kanda-san is preparing patch for xfrm6_tunnel; 
patch will soon be available.


> The tunnels are needed by MIPv6 for encapsulation and decapsulation of
> tunneled packets between the home agent and mobile node. Some proctocols
> like DHCP are also run over the virtual link between the MN and the home
> network according to the MIPv6 specification.

I'm not sure if MIP6 will use this tunnel driver.

-- 
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF  80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA

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