Pekka Savola wrote: > (Btw, some people didn't know BITW stands for "Bump in the Wire".) > > On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Joe Touch wrote: >> FWIW, there are two cases I considered where tunnel decrementing might >> not occur: >> >> 1) BITW >> typically this is for IPsec tunnels, which are >> spec'd in 4301, but which in spirit ought to follow >> 2003 >> >> they might also be used for range-extenders > > No disagreement about host-to-host tunnels. > > As said, I don't see BITW functionality specified or implied in RFC > 2003. But I'd like to know what others think. > > The reason why I think BITW is not important or even relevant in this > context is that such "BITW-like behaviour" is better achieved by L2 > tunneling, which at the same time can also be agnostic of the various L3 > protocols that might need to be "bumped".
Agreed - I'd like to know what besides 'forwarding' might occur at those nodes as well. Come to think of it, L2 bridging is one - where the packet might end up leaving the device, but the IP tunnel wouldn't decrement the TTL as a result. That could happen if the tunnel terminates at a VPN router (e.g., for IPsec transport + IPIP tunnel, as per RFC 3884) Joe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
