IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tsv-art] DCSP mapping

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Thu, 20 September 2018 12:40 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D871130DE2 for <tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 05:40:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.312
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c7cF-siuxrOy for <tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 05:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 075F5130EA2 for <tsv-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 05:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1537447239; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=0JqCQlW4wsAlleDoKiQX+eFGuCrjuct14QnTesLXv8g=; b=NJUH+Q1XUTsW6eJNrDEeeuQK1Bx2FnUhcC+dlD2rPvOJwbCIjmyt6WH8QHoLGDZP 2PlXZp83BNENrZZF6AZPBDDCs5cUjYBWU4x+IUh7340xfsPnvjD2gnGbCli1lz1i iGq+4l3BllgPcOLkYSNQhJu7HbGziliDfsdEP4MuddY=;
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-395ff70000003197-7f-5ba39547ab51
Received: from ESESSMB503.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.121]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 2B.03.12695.74593AB5; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:40:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB502.ericsson.se (153.88.183.163) by ESESSMB503.ericsson.se (153.88.183.164) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:40:38 +0200
Received: from ESESSMB502.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.190]) by ESESSMB502.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.190]) with mapi id 15.01.1466.003; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:40:38 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
To: "ietf@kuehlewind.net" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Tsv-art] DCSP mapping
Thread-Index: AQHUUM6437ICafO7TEOeT9EU/jAuj6T5GKeA
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:40:38 +0000
Message-ID: <62e7537082694d8abe1c8b66e35e0776@ericsson.com>
References: <81F8CC39-469C-45AA-A01C-3142C9439605@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <81F8CC39-469C-45AA-A01C-3142C9439605@kuehlewind.net>
Accept-Language: en-GB, sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.157]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01D450EF.E5904470"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrPIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7pa771MXRBif28lm8uP6R2WLWnkUs DkweS5b8ZPJo+biQNYApissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugSvj/PItTAUfgyt2fn3M0sC4y7+LkZNDQsBE 4umWdrYuRi4OIYGjjBJL53azQzjfGCWmrDjKCOEsY5RYvWQOO0gLm4CFxM0fjWwgtohAhMTd qffBbGEBZYkvR29AxVUk1m46xQJhG0n8//2QGcRmEVCVmHDgBVANBwevgLXEsS1VIGEhAUeJ pu3NjCA2p4CTRPu6KWDljEBjJi/uBFvLLCAucevJfCaIq0UkHl48zQZhi0q8fPyPFcJWktjS u4UJ5GZmgV5GiR0bfoHdwCsgKHFy5hOWCYwis5DMmoWsbhaSOogibYmnN5/C2csWvmaGsK0l Zvw6yAZhK0pM6X7IDmGbSrw++pFxASPHKkbR4tTi4tx0IyO91KLM5OLi/Dy9vNSSTYzAqDu4 5bfVDsaDzx0PMQpwMCrx8E7qWRwtxJpYVlyZe4hRBWjOow2rLzBKseTl56UqifAWgaR5UxIr q1KL8uOLSnNSiw8xSnOwKInzOqVZRAkJpCeWpGanphakFsFkmTg4pRoYG8/2hepI7l/4YQpf 0aO/4rL+D5L1tCaWSH28ePTxnl26D/e1rV/utD2vTK5s6lcm5pkPjQL529wSp05TOn1GIf1o HrOzzfXzDxz+Kwfmb375Ulhbr/AJf/x6x+KHNob/rx88rbZg27O+vcfmZCfnLdI9baySyGAs dO3+TN+epVeqi79KP3b6p8RSnJFoqMVcVJwIAGGGXSnCAgAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/-jAvT0YPHT4SXgzWVwEfPr6TwLA>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] DCSP mapping
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:40:44 -0000

Hi,

Yes, the coping is only relevant if the entity decapsulating the packet isn't sitting on an administrative boundary between two different domains with potentially different markings. For LISP it appears likely that the LISP decapsulator will need to perform DSCP remapping and policing functions. 

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

-----Original Message-----
From: Tsv-art <tsv-art-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
Sent: den 20 september 2018 12:42
To: TSV-ART <tsv-art@ietf.org>
Subject: [Tsv-art] DCSP mapping

Hi all,

while reviewing lisp (rfc6830bis) I wasn’t really able to find guidance on what to do with DSCP for IP in IP tunnels. rfc6830bis say "SHOULD be copied from the inner-header DSCP field“ on encapsulation and decapsulation. Other docs even say MUST (e.g. rfc6333 section-7.1). rfc2474 section-7.2 say that for IPsec it MUST NOT be copied on decapsulation. So I guess, at least for decapsulation, it might not alway make sense to overwrite the inner DSCP with the changed outer DSCP and I would think that in most cases this is rather a local policy question. Do we have any more guidance on this in any RFC that I couldn’t find, or is further guidance needed here?


Mirja

P.S: For rfc6830bis I would like the author to add a sentence that this SHOULD may depend on local policy. („In absence of a different local policy for use of DCSP, the DCSP field SHOULD be copied..“ or something like this)


_______________________________________________
Tsv-art mailing list
Tsv-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email