[PWE3] Fwd: Updated: ECN Tunnelling I-D relevant to PCN, PWE3, IPsec
Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk> Mon, 28 July 2008 06:48 UTC
Return-Path: <pwe3-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: pwe3-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42CA28C19C; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A6AA28C19B for <pwe3@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.775
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.775 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, J_CHICKENPOX_57=0.6, MANGLED_TOOL=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id csBdokpJGe2G for <pwe3@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp4.smtp.bt.com (smtp4.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.151]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBABE28C164 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from i2kc06-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.70]) by smtp4.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:48:56 +0100
Received: from cbibipnt05.iuser.iroot.adidom.com ([147.149.196.177]) by i2kc06-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:48:56 +0100
Received: From bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk ([132.146.168.158]) by cbibipnt05.iuser.iroot.adidom.com (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR1a P0803.399); id 121722773550; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:48:55 +0100
Received: from mut.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.73.192.104]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m6S6mVJj026921; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:48:53 +0100
Message-Id: <200807280648.m6S6mVJj026921@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:20:00 +0100
To: PCN IETF list <pcn@ietf.org>, pwe3@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org
From: Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2008 06:48:56.0003 (UTC) FILETIME=[01657130:01C8F07E]
Cc: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: [PWE3] Fwd: Updated: ECN Tunnelling I-D relevant to PCN, PWE3, IPsec
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/pwe3>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
PCN, PWE3, IPsec lists, Just notifying you of an I-D just posted that could become relevant to each of your w-gs (if it becomes a w-g item - it's still an individual draft). See posting below for details. You might choose to wait to see whether it becomes a tsvwg WG item before reading, or you might want to help (or hinder!) it becoming a WG item. The standards action stuff is in 2 pages from S.5 to S.7. Pls cross-post any discussion that affects your w-g to <tsvwg@ietf.org> at least. Cheers Bob >Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:00:38 +0100 >To: "tsvwg IETF list" <tsvwg@ietf.org> >From: Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk> >Subject: Updated: ECN Tunnelling I-D relevant to PCN, PWE3, IPsec > >Tsvwg (also relevant to PCN, PWE3 & IPsec - but pls discuss on tsvwg), > >Layered Encapsulation of Congestion Notification ><draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-01.txt> >(intended for standards track) > >Abstract and summary of diffs pasted below. > >At the last -00 rev, on the tsvwg list there was unanimous support >and no detractors for the primary proposal to bring the ECN >behaviour of IP in IP tunnels into line with IPsec tunnels. However, >many voiced concerns about secondary aspects of the -00 draft. I >believe I've fixed them all (with considerable help from David Black >and RFC2983), but I've probably added more ;) > >That was a year ago. The ADs suggested, and I agreed, that we should >let it lie until PCN wire protocol was clearer (in case there was an >interaction). PCN's just become clearer. So I've rev'd this one back to life. > >I'm about to go offline until Dublin starts, so I'll pick up any >discussion then. > > >Bob > > >Abstract > > This document redefines how the explicit congestion notification > (ECN) field of the outer IP header of a tunnel should be constructed. > It brings all IP in IP tunnels (v4 or v6) into line with the way > IPsec tunnels now construct the ECN field. It includes a thorough > analysis of the reasoning for this change and the implications. It > also gives guidelines on the encapsulation of IP congestion > notification by any outer header, whether encapsulated in an IP > tunnel or in a lower layer header. Following these guidelines should > help interworking, if the IETF or other standards bodies specify any > new encapsulation of congestion notification. > > >Changes From -00 to -01: > > * Related everything conceptually to the uniform and pipe models > of RFC2983 on Diffserv Tunnels, and completely removed the > dependence of tunnelling behaviour on the presence of any in- > path load regulation by using the [1 - Before] [2 - Outer] > function placement concepts from RFC2983. > > * Added specifc cases where the existing standards limit new > proposals. > > * Added sub-structure to Introduction (Need for Rationalisation, > Roadmap), added new Introductory subsection on "Scope" and > improved clarity > > * Added Design Guidelines for New Encapsulations of Congestion > Notification > > * Considerably clarified the Backward Compatibility section > > * Considerably extended the Security Considerations section > > * Summarised the primary rationale much better in the conclusions > > * Added numerous extra acknowledgements > > * Added Appendix A. "Why resetting CE on encapsulation harms > PCN", Appendix B. "Contribution to Congestion across a Tunnel" > and Appendix C. "Ideal Decapsulation Rules" > > * Changed Appendix A "In-path Load Regulation" to "Non-Dependence > of Tunnelling on In-path Load Regulation" and added sub-section > on "Dependence of In-Path Load Regulation on Tunnelling" > > > >____________________________________________________________________________ >Bob Briscoe, <bob.briscoe@bt.com> Networks Research Centre, BT Research >B54/77 Adastral Park,Martlesham Heath,Ipswich,IP5 3RE,UK. +44 1473 645196 ____________________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe, <bob.briscoe@bt.com> Networks Research Centre, BT Research B54/77 Adastral Park,Martlesham Heath,Ipswich,IP5 3RE,UK. +44 1473 645196 _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3