Re: [tsvwg] Adoption call for draft-white-tsvwg-l4sops - to conclude 24th March 2021

Bob Briscoe <> Wed, 24 March 2021 22:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CB1D3A100A for <>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 15:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.434
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.434 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XUF2HaoJmLol for <>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 15:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D068C3A0FFB for <>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 15:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender: Reply-To:Cc: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=NAb2k7EgTC/QuSzgQpLZLhzTiCXWKhbrBXlRjexOGzs=; b=vOCKrIWwWODF/WVs3dWgYolJiW M0gcrUPy/e9ByC4E/ZuACzl3YivuXXdDc8tbuqlhr4/rW6kAIMxp+ExMdrEzdS79g3QdVidt6zo0N YtUYdrQGVJTqOcxYQ0Mrs4PhbH9t2OlVKhjBrqVt6L3nh/WxM9uHGYDFiLJwUDTGKUEHMn837c684 tE2b65orJll9LdI5O0PODKyGeDwAkSauXR84Qnl/rP5Bc+7khuKVYQ4IMExBM9juPJBmIuHV8Ynig YrPCLL8u543SNLX7wW09kau1FVwrb0LV4FUQnGlWtlp2cK2uY420rPVb/n2xsSQoPhWvowFZtTE3i QIF4LXjA==;
Received: from ([]:56928 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from <>) id 1lPCKa-0002wf-HD; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 22:50:28 +0000
To: Steven Blake <>, "" <>
References: <> <>
From: Bob Briscoe <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 22:50:27 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Adoption call for draft-white-tsvwg-l4sops - to conclude 24th March 2021
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 22:50:35 -0000


On 23/03/2021 00:56, Steven Blake wrote:
> Sec. 4 (Operator of a Network) of the draft presumes that deployed
> equipment is capable to classifying packets specifically on ECT(1).
> Have the authors confirmed that this feature is available on commonly
> deployed operator gear (e.g., IOS-XR, JUNOS)?

(Aside: I think you're reading an old (-01) draft. That section has been 
Sec. 5. since draft-02 on 22 Feb 2021.
See my response to the initial adoption call about the probable cause of 
this confusion - suspected problems with the IETF tools servers.

To your point, I checked the manuals of one or two OSs of common makes 
of router before I proposed the WRED technique for addition to the 
draft. And I discussed the hardware capabilities with people within one 
or two router vendors. In the cases I checked, the CLI limits the 
flexibility that the admin has to define classifiers as general bit 
patterns. However the hardware underneath does have that flexibility. So 
this would require a CLI update for the routers I checked. The Linux 
classifier architecture does provide sufficient flexibility for such a 

I also suggested the ECT(1) tunnel bypass technique, but I didn't 
exhaustively check the manuals of all the different types of tunnel 
(there are dozens).

I think this list of techniques is most useful for router developers, 
who can then find the easiest and most efficient one for their 
particular kit; whether they have to update the CLI, or whether they can 
find a way for their users to configure their unmodified systems in the 


> Regards,
> // Steve

Bob Briscoe