From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 25 17:19:42 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2AA816A4CE for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:19:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from arginine.spc.org (arginine.spc.org [195.206.69.236]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 523BD43D4C for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:19:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bms@spc.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arginine.spc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C0F65219; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:19:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from arginine.spc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arginine.spc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 19996-02-2; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:19:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from empiric.dek.spc.org (unknown [213.210.24.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by arginine.spc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD89651FC; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:19:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: by empiric.dek.spc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id BA2F26383; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:20:49 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:20:49 +0000 From: Bruce M Simpson To: Jeremie Le Hen Message-ID: <20050125172049.GL47638@dhcp120.icir.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jeremie Le Hen , Nickolay Kritsky , freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <20050125171120.GH59685@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050125171120.GH59685@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: Nickolay Kritsky Subject: Re: gif(4) and bpf(4) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:19:42 -0000 On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 06:11:20PM +0100, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: [...] > thus consuming too much bandwidth. In fact it appeared that my gif(4) > interface is totally useless in my setup. I'm going to switch to > transport mode ASAP and tell my friend he owes me and you all a beer. I forgot to say in my original reply that I was using IPSEC transport mode. When I was discussing this with Bill Fenner he pointed out that there was no such thing as IPSEC 'interface mode', though there had been some discussion during the standards process about the need for such a thing. The combination of IPSEC transport mode and a tunneling protocol provides such a mode. Regards, BMS