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

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Fred,

At 22:39 04/11/2013, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:

>On Nov 4, 2013, at 2:03 PM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]> 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?

The idea is to issue liaison statements to make the relevant stds 
bodies aware of this. E.g.:
- to 3GPP for GTP,
- to IEEE for 802.

The IETF maintains a number of the relevant tunnelling protocols it 
mentions, e.g.
L2TP, GRE, PPTP.



________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                                  BT