Differences between etherip(4) and gif(4)

[Russell Sutherland]

I noticed that the etherip pseudo-device appeared with OpenBSD 5.9 which is
intended for tunnelling.

Prior to this I have been using the gif pseudo device to accomplish much the
same thing (in my case L2 over L3).

Apart from specifying the mtu to lower value to avoid problems with larger
frames, is there any real advantage with the new etherip device?


—
Russell Sutherland
Supervisor, Network Development | Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions
Information Technology Services | University of Toronto
4 Bancroft Ave., Rm. 102 | Toronto, ON M5S 1C1

***@utoronto.ca
+1.416.978.0470 ~ tel
+1.416.978.6620 ~ fax

[Stuart Henderson]

Post by Russell Sutherland
I noticed that the etherip pseudo-device appeared with OpenBSD 5.9 which is
intended for tunnelling.
Prior to this I have been using the gif pseudo device to accomplish much the
same thing (in my case L2 over L3).
Apart from specifying the mtu to lower value to avoid problems with larger
frames, is there any real advantage with the new etherip device?

Yes, you won't have to reconfigure when that functionality is removed
from gif.

[Theo de Raadt]

Post by Russell Sutherland
I noticed that the etherip pseudo-device appeared with OpenBSD 5.9 which is
intended for tunnelling.
Prior to this I have been using the gif pseudo device to accomplish much the
same thing (in my case L2 over L3).
Apart from specifying the mtu to lower value to avoid problems with larger
frames, is there any real advantage with the new etherip device?

Let me see if I know your pain.

A route forcing traffic ipsec traffic into a gif that is a member of
the bridge, to fragment; and on the other end, defragging it into full
MTU traffic.

Such a configuration requires a lot of pieces. It is fragile
configuration, and you need to be very careful using such a machine
for too many other network services.

etherip makes a few of those steps easier. It is still new, so try it out.