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

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Mon, 16 March 2020 21:44 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 1355D3A11E1 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.319
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.319 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, 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 Awt6wnPExODD for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:44:23 -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 1B65C3A11DE for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:44:23 -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: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: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=+SyZStqS97iSr3pxuhhYMzGUlWd9ahFR0FDUhIPcMDg=; b=qp4I555ti/9mUVvEJOWI2qBlO SqeD4XnfQoFXC4do4Qbyeb8h6m8+LqfU2avfqxNCt2mxPHWOs8s+wwqYEFjXluqH5ITulH/6xbrde qHG1JxXrfR7YF5tJJuNwsM5pYLc6gn1s6msRmKmQBV63i/zj9tK4Iac4U7JrPameEn/jsR/SA4ghe cFL1/6uKaH4Gbz8knv/ES0/9Dep92V2R6dFAaSzZWi9wi4e7AvYWG0C2746p1T+KRNYPMH0xQua+S dEpLC/rYuU8m8yPb5CjYwemwve5fMfU2iQhjTklhUWi1cUaob0IRzhGajpf9u2yI2sn4SjoBcf+P/ DsphgEV7A==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:54506 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 1jDxX0-000oNR-MS; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 17:44:22 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <FEC69B1D-5A71-4507-BA4C-A2FBC6DEDB8E@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:44:18 -0700
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A78EAD49-37D3-4A65-A21D-A004AADA31A4@strayalpha.com>
References: <202003162130.02GLUBRv094638@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <79DADF1F-4B33-4146-A75C-8B6E70614197@strayalpha.com> <FEC69B1D-5A71-4507-BA4C-A2FBC6DEDB8E@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
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/CswKhzkspyvzH42DZps85aFwiww>
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 21:44:24 -0000


> On Mar 16, 2020, at 2:42 PM, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 16 Mar, 2020, at 11:38 pm, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>> 
>> That’s not always possible. If the net runs over minimal IPv6 links, there’s no way to ensure a traffic can support 1280B packets over 1280B tunnels.
> 
> I think the 1280B minimum was intended to allow for the possibility of running through tunnels on conventional 1500B physical networks.

Actually, the 1280B is the path min; the receiver min is 1500B exactly to allow for this sort of frag/reassembly (where a tunnel egress *is* such a receiver). The 1500B comes from Ethernet; the 1280B is smaller deliberately.

Joe