IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Status of ECN encapsulation drafts (i.e., stuck)

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Mon, 16 March 2020 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 186033A0A48 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 08:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.318
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 71S3Kgv7hhfV for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 08:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (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 B03BA3A0B19 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 08:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=eCL+OPs80W5T3ZHhgUK+PagjmeiPrQ6vKrluEIHv4QA=; b=p+zHubfzyMhRwErn3utjPrqwZ R6Bx/4jKUWJu2zKiRBlYV4Sl6YGxnStovY0/Q/BJtvzkXv0Rb0MaxI3TRHY9HDkb2hwhPMT7hSHO+ 9I6OLxzZsOJlrmG3lYy5gEu0RAlL3zXhlwA7v/zi27EBlfaDQiEu86s8SKlOJ1dCfZbpTSVug3/nL eqlJg/SB5Cy7sS4qExfFzK8ocev1briRvSI14OxJwfPZLI3jQxoB8gCq9QzdF/B913xo2sVlpm6X+ 2UQIgRoTx1zPD8ElBhrhucWtZxpCRH/3oAdiwv16GPSaYOBRqUpXTGd3GbKcsrwUXMj2SMnogs39e ISSNXhE7g==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:53196 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1jDrp4-002YUT-RR; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 11:38:39 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C88783C7-C965-40B5-BBDA-C6588D9E046E"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <B51ACBB2-5D58-4525-898F-08C3E0D96514@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 08:38:34 -0700
Cc: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <C15F007E-F7C4-42B3-A785-F5D1A0BEE0B1@strayalpha.com>
References: <202003142218.02EMIJ9D085996@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <5b8f776e-75ca-aaf6-0137-f8189db49259@bobbriscoe.net> <B51ACBB2-5D58-4525-898F-08C3E0D96514@gmx.de>
To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/36up_RkxbF5CBI9l_V6Q82aeJ8E>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Status of ECN encapsulation drafts (i.e., stuck)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:38:55 -0000


> On Mar 16, 2020, at 2:19 AM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
>> Note, these are not to be confused with suppressing propagation of DF=1 from the arriving IP header to the outer (so that a downstream router within the tunnel is allowed to fragment). In Linux, that would be: iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -j DF --clear
>> 
>> So yes, I know this is often done, but I don't know how often.
> 
> 	[SM] Bigger question, should the IETF actually endorse something like that?

If you’re referring to not propagating tunnel info between inner and outer, draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels explains how these headers are and are not related.

If you’re referring to ignoring DF, we already have at least one doc that explains the hazards of that (RFC6864).

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email