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

(usagi-users 00662) Re: rfc2893 vs. rfc2983

To: usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: (usagi-users 00662) Re: rfc2893 vs. rfc2983
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 00:24:32 +0900
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>
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
Sender: "Hideaki YOSHIFUJI" <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

In article <Pine.LNX.4.31.0107230853001.4978-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:04:01 +0200 (CEST)), <6bone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> says:

> I think linux is working with this rfc at the moment.

No for linux-2.4.

> rfc2983 now defines other ways to handle the tos-fields at tunnels.
> 
> Is it planned to implement a tos handling as described in rfcrfc2983 ?
> Is it possible (as a simple start for ipv6-in-ipv4 tunnels) to map the
> inner tos from the ipv6 packet to the outer-ipv4 packet ?

I believe we already have it.

--yoshfuji

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 00661) Re: SO_BINDTODEVICE functionality removed?
Next by Date: (usagi-users 00663) SO_REUSEPORT
Previous by thread: (usagi-users 00656) Re: rfc2893 vs. rfc2983
Next by thread: (usagi-users 00655) 2001/07/23 snapshot
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread