Re: [Int-area] IP-in-IP, TTL decrementing when forwarding and BITW

(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".

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

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area