Talk:Generic routing encapsulation

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Weird sentence

I don't understand this sentence: the tunnel end-points do not monitor the state or availability of other tunnel end-points. What are the other end-points? I guess it only makes sense to have two end-points, not more. --Abdull 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. My ~guess~ is that it means that each end point doesn't monitor the state or availability of the other, but that's only a guess. --DigitalSorceress 16:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I know GRE I'd say DigitalSorrceress is right. there are only *two* end-points --84.60.62.150 19:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DigitalSorceress, but the additional problem is that the section contradicts itself: it also says that the end-point does have knowledge of the state of the other end in order to update routing tables. I have added a contradiction tag. 194.209.10.69 (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ASCII Art vs "real" borders

Might be my problem, but the bit boundaries don't show at the correct positions, neither do the horizontal bars end at the same position as the "content" lines. Can anyone confirm this behaviour, and if so, any objections against going back to the old ASCII layout? Sigkill 17:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I use Firefox 2.0.0.12 and Debian Sarge (Spanish). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.247.185 (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. — Aleksey Gerasimov (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in line with latest protocol definition?

After a quick glance at the RFCs, the current protocol definition in this article appears to be in line with the old RFC 1701, but not with the newer RFC 2784. A few fields have been eliminated, specifically the optional "Routing" field. --Yaron 13:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your observation is correct, I adjusted this TheVi (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. The version displayed in 2020 (and possibly in 2007) was the extended variant defined by RFC 2890, extending the version defined by RFC 2784. It was not a "mix" of the RFC 2784 and RFC 1701 versions. That said, the article now delineates the packet headers for all three versions, which is probably redundant and unnecessary, especially given that RFC 1701 is obsolete.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stub or Class B?

I noticed that the article has a Class B rating listed in the discussion, but the article itself is tagged as a stub. According to the assessment standards, (WP:ASSESS) the two would seem to be mutually exclusive. Any thoughts? --DigitalSorceress 16:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A8, A10, PCF

This sentence: "A8/A10 interfaces use GRE protocol to encapsulate IP data to/from Packet Control Function (PCF)." could be made less cryptic. Perhaps by having a link explaining A8, A10, or PCF.

192.114.175.2 (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SRE

The explanation for the "Routing" field just states it's a list of SREs, with no explanation what SRE is. That line (t least) seems to be a cut & paste from http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/protocol/gre.htm , and there SRE is termed "Source Route Entry Packet". So I guess someone who knows GRE should try to change that line so it makes sense; and maybe someone wants to look at that URL to check if it was copied righteously. 192.114.175.2 (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Link Needed

Would someone please create a "GRE protocol" page(?) that redirects here. I would but don't know how. 206.180.156.58 (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC 1701 delivery frame ethertype

I am prety novice to this protocol, So my question might sound dumb. Please pardon but the question is what would be the ethernet type/length field value of the delivery packet containing a GRE as per RFC1701 ? I design ethernet MAC and hence interseted in knowing the type field of the base ethernet packet received by the device.

RFC 1701 shows FFFF as reserved but is it GRE protocol type or delivery ethertype ?

Thanks in advance. Sudeepb (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more intro

This article needs a better introduction and overview for non techie people. one paragraph to set the scene in layman's language would be great.

Seconded, the first paragraph of the Overview section goes into way too intricate dilemma of the protocol (statelesness of GRE links and it's consequences) without being precluded with a proper overview that should actually constitute of further explaining the problems that GRE solves and the mechanisms of encapsulation and routing as they are implemented with GRE, in more laymans terms than elsewere in the article.

Might as well read Cisco's original text

I concur with the comment above. Perhaps the reason this is so techie-oriented is that it comes directly out of a Cisco technical paper (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk827/tk369/technologies_tech_note09186a008048cffc.shtml). Is plagiarism on Wikipedia proper form, especially when it's not referenced? Chasman1964 (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference on mobile example needed

In section Example Uses mobility protocols are mentioned. Can we see a reference to any such example? Ppso (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soft GRE

It would be nice to see a disambiguation of GRE versus Soft GRE. Jean-Lou Dupont (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PPTP GRE packet structure

Since the PPTP GRE packet structure is slightly different from the standard GRE, I added a packet structure table to differentiate the two. Also added simple explanations of the various fields in both packet structures.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the removal of the PPTP section, on the grounds that the PPTP variant of GRE is notable and worthy of inclusion here. It is different enough from the base GRE to require at least some explanation, and is not clearly explained under the related PPTP article. I also reverted the removal of the when/why tags in the lead; I don't think these tags were unreasonable or out of place and the information is missing from the article.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refimprove tag removed

Boldly removing the refimprove tag; article seems adequately referenced to me and I'm not sure why the tag was added four years ago in the first place. Also removed the overly specific configuration example section under WP:NOTMANUAL.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]