From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Feb 21 10:23:44 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from demo.esys.ca (demo.esys.ca [207.167.22.130]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8590F115D9 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 10:23:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lyndon@execmail.ca) Received: from ht46l.orthanc.ab.ca (thingfish.v-wave.com [24.108.17.129]) by demo.esys.ca (2.0.4/SMS 2.0.4-beta-5) with ESMTP id CAA01476; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 02:32:01 -0700 From: Lyndon Nerenberg Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 18:24:44 +0000 To: Robert Watson Subject: nos-tun using IP protocol 94 (was: coda and tunX) Cc: Chad David , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 Version 5.0 pc5 Build (35) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/signed; boundary="Part9902211824.B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG --Part9902211824.B Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"; name="ipm.txt" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="ipm.txt" > I did this also at one point, but switched to looking at nos-tun now in > 3.0 and 4.0. It has the advantage of not being home-rolled I was looking at this the other week, and noticed it uses the old protocol 94 encapsulation, instead of protocol 4. We dropped the "94" tunnels on ampr-net years ago. nos-tun should probably be changed to use the standard encapsulation protocol number. --lyndon --Part9902211824.B Content-Type: Application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.5.2 (C) 1997-1998 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. iQA/AwUBNtBPbxvgRSChfsw2EQLFjQCg9WM9D4h2YWd8C9Scw8mCcbTq2icAoOx+ L6MsS1meITNimjI/wse4gj/0 =m3R1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Part9902211824.B-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message