Re: Difference between tunnel modes: GRE/IP versus IPv6/IP

From: garry baker <baker.garry_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:03:12 +0300

Tunneling Type: Manual (ipv6ip )

Suggested Usage: Simple point-to-point tunnels that can be used within a
site or between sites.

Usage Notes: Can carry IPv6 packets only.

Tunneling Type: GRE/IPv4 (gre ip)

Suggested Usage: Simple point-to-point tunnels that can be used within a
site or between sites.

Usage Notes: Can carry IPv6, CLNS, and many other types of packets.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/docs/ios/interface/configuration/guide/ir_impl_tun_ps6441_TSD_Products_Configuration_Guide_Chapter.html#wp1072447

--
Garry L. Baker
"There is no 'patch' for stupidity." - www.sqlsecurity.com
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Andy Reid <ccie_at_reid.it> wrote:
> Thanks for your time checking this. From a traffic perspective I wonder if
> there is any restrictions on an IPv6/IP tunnel over a straight GRE tunnel.
>
>
> regards Andy
>
> garry baker wrote:
>
>> ' difference in functionality ' that i can see from a quick debug ip
>> packet
>> is
>>
>> GRE/IP = len 124, sending, proto=47
>>  IPv6/IP = len 120, sending, proto=41
>>
>> changing the way the tunnel is encapusaled, in size at least....
>>
>> Tunnel1 is up, line protocol is up
>>  Hardware is Tunnel
>>  MTU 1514 bytes, BW 9 Kbit/sec, DLY 500000 usec,
>>     reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255
>>  Encapsulation TUNNEL, loopback not set
>>  Keepalive not set
>>  Tunnel source 1.1.1.12, destination 1.1.1.11
>>  Tunnel protocol/transport GRE/IP
>>
>> R11#ping 3001::12 r 1
>> Type escape sequence to abort.
>> Sending 1, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 3001::12, timeout is 2 seconds:
>> !
>> Success rate is 100 percent (1/1), round-trip min/avg/max = 80/80/80 ms
>>
>> R12#
>> IP: s=1.1.1.12 (Tunnel1), d=1.1.1.11 (FastEthernet0/0), len 124, sending,
>> proto=47
>>
>>
>>
>> R12#sh int tunnel 1
>> Tunnel1 is up, line protocol is up
>>  Hardware is Tunnel
>>  MTU 1514 bytes, BW 9 Kbit/sec, DLY 500000 usec,
>>     reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255
>>  Encapsulation TUNNEL, loopback not set
>>  Keepalive not set
>>  Tunnel source 1.1.1.12, destination 1.1.1.11
>>  Tunnel protocol/transport IPv6/IP
>>
>> R11#ping 3001::12 r 1
>> Type escape sequence to abort.
>> Sending 1, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 3001::12, timeout is 2 seconds:
>> !
>> Success rate is 100 percent (1/1), round-trip min/avg/max = 68/68/68 ms
>>
>> R12#
>> IP: tableid=0, s=1.1.1.11 (FastEthernet0/0), d=1.1.1.12 (FastEthernet0/0),
>> routed via RIB
>> IP: s=1.1.1.11 (FastEthernet0/0), d=1.1.1.12 (FastEthernet0/0), len 120,
>> rcvd 3, proto=41
>> IP: s=1.1.1.12 (Tunnel1), d=1.1.1.11 (FastEthernet0/0), len 120, sending,
>> proto=41
>>
>>
>> --
>> Garry L. Baker
>>
>> "There is no 'patch' for stupidity." - www.sqlsecurity.com
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Andy Reid <ccie_at_reid.it> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Could someone explain to me the difference between GRE/IP and IPv6/IP
>>> tunnel modes when the GRE/IP tunnel has an IPv6 address configured at
>>> each
>>> end.
>>>
>>> Both tunnel modes have an IPv4 source and destination address. The only
>>> difference I can spot is in the "show int tunnel x" command where the
>>> Tunnel
>>> protocol/transport is shown differently. I can't spot any difference in
>>> functionality at the moment.
>>>
>>> regards Andy
>>>
>>>
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Tue Feb 23 2010 - 17:03:12 ART

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 01 2010 - 06:28:36 ART