Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding ECN to L2 or tunnel protocols?

On Nov 4, 2013, at 2:03 PM, Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> Pls respond if you support this being adopted as a work-group item in the IETF transport services w-g (tsvwg). The WG chairs need visibility of interest.

And don't respond if we don't support it? :-)

I have a very basic question. For IP/IP tunnels, such as GRE, the ECN flags are defined, and I would imagine that RFC 2983 could be interpreted as saying what one does with flags (when you move the TOS octet, move 8 bits, whether in->out or out->in). For non-IP tunnels, with the exception of MPLS, the IETF doesn't define the header.

How does one add ECN to a protocol we don't maintain? If we maintain it, are we already done?

> Even better, if you're willing to read / comment / review / implement
> 
> Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to Protocols that Encapsulate IP
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines>
> 
> Abstract
> 
>   The purpose of this document is to guide the design of congestion
>   notification in any lower layer or tunnelling protocol that
>   encapsulates IP.  The aim is for explicit congestion signals to
>   propagate consistently from lower layer protocols into IP.  Then the
>   IP internetwork layer can act as a portability layer to carry
>   congestion notification from non-IP-aware congested nodes up to the
>   transport layer (L4).  Following these guidelines should assure
>   interworking between new lower layer congestion notification
>   mechanisms, whether specified by the IETF or other standards bodies.
> 
> 
> [Cross-posting tsvwg & aqm, just in case]
> 
> 
> Bob Briscoe,
> also for co-authors Pat Thaler and John Kaippallimalil
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe,                                                  BT 
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

------------------------------------------------------
8 issues in virtual infrastructure
http://dcrocker.net/#fallacies

Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding ECN to L2 or tunnel protocols?

Attachment: signature.asc