[Tsvwg] Fwd: Updated: ECN Tunnelling I-D relevant to PCN, PWE3, IPsec

Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk> Mon, 28 July 2008 06:49 UTC

Return-Path: <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tsvwg-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tsvwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CC8F28C19B; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB88428C19B for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.775
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.775 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, J_CHICKENPOX_57=0.6, MANGLED_TOOL=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dOK2A+1d4i9T for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp4.smtp.bt.com (smtp4.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.151]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 942B728C193 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from i2kc06-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.70]) by smtp4.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:48:56 +0100
Received: from cbibipnt05.iuser.iroot.adidom.com ([147.149.196.177]) by i2kc06-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:48:56 +0100
Received: From bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk ([132.146.168.158]) by cbibipnt05.iuser.iroot.adidom.com (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR1a P0803.399); id 121722773550; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:48:55 +0100
Received: from mut.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.73.192.104]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m6S6mVJj026921; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:48:53 +0100
Message-Id: <200807280648.m6S6mVJj026921@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:20:00 +0100
To: PCN IETF list <pcn@ietf.org>, pwe3@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org
From: Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2008 06:48:56.0284 (UTC) FILETIME=[019051C0:01C8F07E]
Cc: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: [Tsvwg] Fwd: Updated: ECN Tunnelling I-D relevant to PCN, PWE3, IPsec
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Sender: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org

PCN, PWE3, IPsec lists,

Just notifying you of an I-D just posted that could become relevant 
to each of your w-gs (if it becomes a w-g item - it's still an 
individual draft).

See posting below for details.

You might choose to wait to see whether it becomes a tsvwg WG item 
before reading, or you might want to help (or hinder!) it becoming a 
WG item. The standards action stuff is in 2 pages from S.5 to S.7.

Pls cross-post any discussion that affects your w-g to 
<tsvwg@ietf.org> at least.

Cheers


Bob


>Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:00:38 +0100
>To: "tsvwg IETF list" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
>From: Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk>
>Subject: Updated: ECN Tunnelling I-D relevant to PCN, PWE3, IPsec
>
>Tsvwg (also relevant to PCN, PWE3 & IPsec - but pls discuss on tsvwg),
>
>Layered Encapsulation of Congestion Notification
><draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-01.txt>
>(intended for standards track)
>
>Abstract and summary of diffs pasted below.
>
>At the last -00 rev, on the tsvwg list there was unanimous support 
>and no detractors for the primary proposal to bring the ECN 
>behaviour of IP in IP tunnels into line with IPsec tunnels. However, 
>many voiced concerns about secondary aspects of the -00 draft. I 
>believe I've fixed them all (with considerable help from David Black 
>and RFC2983), but I've probably added more ;)
>
>That was a year ago. The ADs suggested, and I agreed, that we should 
>let it lie until PCN wire protocol was clearer (in case there was an 
>interaction). PCN's just become clearer. So I've rev'd this one back to life.
>
>I'm about to go offline until Dublin starts, so I'll pick up any 
>discussion then.
>
>
>Bob
>
>
>Abstract
>
>    This document redefines how the explicit congestion notification
>    (ECN) field of the outer IP header of a tunnel should be constructed.
>    It brings all IP in IP tunnels (v4 or v6) into line with the way
>    IPsec tunnels now construct the ECN field.  It includes a thorough
>    analysis of the reasoning for this change and the implications.  It
>    also gives guidelines on the encapsulation of IP congestion
>    notification by any outer header, whether encapsulated in an IP
>    tunnel or in a lower layer header.  Following these guidelines should
>    help interworking, if the IETF or other standards bodies specify any
>    new encapsulation of congestion notification.
>
>
>Changes From -00 to -01:
>
>       *  Related everything conceptually to the uniform and pipe models
>          of RFC2983 on Diffserv Tunnels, and completely removed the
>          dependence of tunnelling behaviour on the presence of any in-
>          path load regulation by using the [1 - Before] [2 - Outer]
>          function placement concepts from RFC2983.
>
>       *  Added specifc cases where the existing standards limit new
>          proposals.
>
>       *  Added sub-structure to Introduction (Need for Rationalisation,
>          Roadmap), added new Introductory subsection on "Scope" and
>          improved clarity
>
>       *  Added Design Guidelines for New Encapsulations of Congestion
>          Notification
>
>       *  Considerably clarified the Backward Compatibility section
>
>       *  Considerably extended the Security Considerations section
>
>       *  Summarised the primary rationale much better in the conclusions
>
>       *  Added numerous extra acknowledgements
>
>       *  Added Appendix A.  "Why resetting CE on encapsulation harms
>          PCN", Appendix B.  "Contribution to Congestion across a Tunnel"
>          and Appendix C.  "Ideal Decapsulation Rules"
>
>       *  Changed Appendix A "In-path Load Regulation" to "Non-Dependence
>          of Tunnelling on In-path Load Regulation" and added sub-section
>          on "Dependence of In-Path Load Regulation on Tunnelling"
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________________
>Bob Briscoe, <bob.briscoe@bt.com>      Networks Research Centre, BT Research
>B54/77 Adastral Park,Martlesham Heath,Ipswich,IP5 3RE,UK.    +44 1473 645196

____________________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe, <bob.briscoe@bt.com>      Networks Research Centre, BT Research
B54/77 Adastral Park,Martlesham Heath,Ipswich,IP5 3RE,UK.    +44 1473 645196