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

Bob Briscoe <> Fri, 13 March 2020 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91B503A0764 for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.433
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.433 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_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 mxGBFyJ5ALF8 for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:58:45 -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 62E7C3A0763 for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:58:45 -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:Cc:To:Subject: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=PQlLWvHEssMc69Iz+qvetyUmiWTvnASRASgvM/MRARg=; b=jla6O4R/y5kBe0D6NaAI1wMh3m K2Kf/pTGMvlry1GoKdEENyIrGeNcyvpB8Xjyok84u20fwUbc/izsJeN2BMHltWWZ78l3gdKtNfB/o Gz60l8AustADLXa9M9y2svW4KVuT/3RgojQwmJ4FZVi0RTVUtP3wy2ipUJoNwOMEcnwAkDDxFmmwR imm0PhviJMQuWrGZzjpB9N4XF32OPTlihxq/CzKBGP+Im+Mgg7uZbyYkvi6SIKjJtZJK//dOrqkOO clWUKqifaybymTCZF24o7EFm3WfdtRaigvcfsRQ3CYHiqC95jtQiX4sPmv4XJMLQastq357LckSPt ynJ+HEXw==;
Received: from [] (port=39364 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <>) id 1jCoa3-00FRXD-Jx; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:58:43 +0000
To: Jonathan Morton <>
Cc: "Black, David" <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Bob Briscoe <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:58:42 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
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] Status of ECN encapsulation drafts (i.e., stuck)
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: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:58:47 -0000


On 13/03/2020 17:56, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>> On 13 Mar, 2020, at 7:45 pm, Bob Briscoe <> wrote:
>> No, you have to read the email. The doubling comes at fragmentation, then the reassembly is meant to compensate for it.
> Ah, so the situation is that the CE mark occurs *before* the tunnel and the fragmentation.


Are you reading my recent emails, or the main email?


>   But this should not cause any problem in the end, either, because the packets are reassembled before being interpreted by the transport receiver.  Reworking my earlier example:
> Let's consider two original, consecutive IP packets: A B, both marked ECT.  B is then marked CE by an AQM.  They are then encapsulated by a tunnel, producing TA(ECT) TB(CE).  These are both larger than the MTU, so are fragmented into TA1(ECT) TA2(ECT) TB1(CE) TB2(CE).  Eventually these packets are decapsulated, prior to which they must be reassembled, and the CE marks on TB1 and TB2 must be preserved somehow.
> TA1(ECT) TA2(ECT) always reassembles into TA(ECT), and TB1(CE) TB2(CE) reassembles into TB(CE) under RFC-3168 rules.  We would then have A(ECT) and B(CE) transmitted onward, which seems to match the intent of the AQM - in particular, the number of CE marks is preserved, not doubled.
> So again, what context am I missing?
>   - Jonathan Morton

Bob Briscoe