Re: [tsvwg] Question about proper node behavior -ECN
Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Wed, 17 May 2023 15:15 UTC
Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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 947DDC151B31 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 May 2023 08:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.886
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.886 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LSnzsdGhPY2m for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 May 2023 08:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.19.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B93A2C151B1F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 May 2023 08:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.130] (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 023101B001AD; Wed, 17 May 2023 16:15:31 +0100 (BST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------kjfGNIw870MayMwCDlkLXvss"
Message-ID: <68d6e42a-cce7-221f-0a36-f4c63fb3d371@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 16:15:31 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0
To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <AM8PR07MB81377925B14E2E876D921417C27E9@AM8PR07MB8137.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Organization: UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN
In-Reply-To: <AM8PR07MB81377925B14E2E876D921417C27E9@AM8PR07MB8137.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Ms2qfItpYpP6R4lpFHtg8w3YxNo>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Question about proper node behavior -ECN
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 17 May 2023 15:15:42 -0000
On 17/05/2023 15:57, Ingemar Johansson S wrote: > > Hi > > A very short question.. I am trying to find the proper refrenence that > says that nodes (routers, 5G gNB, WiFi AP...) should not remark > Not-ECT to any of the other 3 code points. Where do I find it > > Regards > /Ingemar > Hi Ingemar, A start is the statment in RFC3168 that says this in section 22: Prior toRFC 2474 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2474>, routers were not permitted to modify bits in either the DSCP or ECN field of packets forwarded through them, and hence routers that comply only with RFCs prior to 2474 should have no effect on ECN. Hence, if a router is not permitted to modify the field, unless it supports a spec that implements ECN. Section 5 then states this is updated as: The not-ECT codepoint '00' indicates a packet that is not using ECN. I am sure someone will tell us if there is a clearer reference text somewhere else. Best wishes, Gorry
- [tsvwg] Question about proper node behavior -ECN Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tsvwg] Question about proper node behavior -… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] Question about proper node behavior -… Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] Question about proper node behavior -… Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] Question about proper node behavior -… Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tsvwg] Question about proper node behavior -… Jonathan Morton