[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

(usagi-users 00656) Re: rfc2893 vs. rfc2983

To: 6bone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: (usagi-users 00656) Re: rfc2893 vs. rfc2983
From: Yuji Sekiya <sekiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 19:44:26 +0900
Cc: usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.31.0107230853001.4978-100000@6bone.informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
List-subscribe: <mailto:usagi-users-ctl@linux-ipv6.org?body=subscribe>
Organization: Keio University
References: <m3ae1wjhui.wl@shaku.sfc.wide.ad.jp> <Pine.LNX.4.31.0107230853001.4978-100000@6bone.informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Reply-to: usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.4.0 (Rio) REMI/1.14.2 (Hokuhoku-ﾒshima) Chao/1.14.1 (Rokujizò) APEL/10.2 MULE XEmacs/21.1 (patch 9) (Canyonlands) (i686-pc-linux)

At Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:04:01 +0200 (CEST),
<6bone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> rfc2983 now defines other ways to handle the tos-fields at tunnels.

Currently we have no future plan to implement RFC2983.
But I think it is an interesting topic.

Thanks.

-- Yuji Sekiya

References:
- (usagi-users 00647) [usagi-announce] 2001/07/23 snapshot
  - From: Yuji Sekiya
- (usagi-users 00648) rfc2893 vs. rfc2983
  - From: 6bone

Prev by Date: (usagi-users 00655) 2001/07/23 snapshot
Next by Date: (usagi-users 00657) new suggestion for mobile node implementation
Previous by thread: (usagi-users 00648) rfc2893 vs. rfc2983
Next by thread: (usagi-users 00662) Re: rfc2893 vs. rfc2983
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread