Re: draft-ietf-udlr-lltunnel-03.txt - Two questions.

[Tim Gleeson <tgleeson@cisco.com>]

> I have two queries on draft-ietf-udlr-lltunnel-03.txt.
>
> ------------
> 3. Topology
>
> Why ***MUST*** an End System with a receive-only interface behave as a
> router?
> Is there a reason why a simple client can not simply implement lltunnel
> without
> having to activate specific router code?
>
> I don't understand - can someone help?

I think there was a lot of debate about this on the mailing list. I'll 
leave other people to comment on this. In any case, this hasn't changed 
since the last version of the draft.

> ------------
> 10. Security Considerations - Not sure what you recommend about IPSEC.
>
> Final sentence, para 1.
>
> The discussion suggests IPSEC is ***not*** recommended on the forward
> link.  Is there a reason why this is not allowed? I don't see why.

Because the forward link (the UDL) is a "link layer" link, not an IP link. 
The previous sentence suggests "link layer" mechanisms may be appropriate 
on the UDL.

Tim