From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Jan  2 23:25:16 2001
From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jan  2 23:25:15 2001
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from coconut.itojun.org (coconut.itojun.org [210.160.95.97])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id CBCF937B400; Tue,  2 Jan 2001 23:25:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kiwi.itojun.org (localhost.itojun.org [127.0.0.1])
	by coconut.itojun.org (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with ESMTP id QAA04708;
	Wed, 3 Jan 2001 16:25:02 +0900 (JST)
To: "Michael C . Wu" <keichii@peorth.iteration.net>
Cc: jlemon@freebsd.org, rwatson@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: keichii's message of Wed, 03 Jan 2001 01:07:39 CST.
      <20010103010739.A68404@peorth.iteration.net>
X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org
X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org
X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD  90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2
Subject: Re: TCP Rate-Halving
From: itojun@iijlab.net
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:25:02 +0900
Message-ID: <4706.978506702@coconut.itojun.org>
Sender: itojun@itojun.org
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

>Is this specified in the IPv6 specs? Does KAME do this?

	I don't think so.  TCP on IPv6 is exactly the same as TCP on IPv4.
	only differences I know of are in the following portion:
	(1) pseudo-header checksum documented in in RFC2460 section 8.1
	(2) jumbogram support documented in RFC2675
	there's no additional requirements whatsoever, I believe.

itojun


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message