IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] RFC 4301 on ECN codepoints (was RE: L4S vs SCE (Evolvability))

Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> Fri, 03 January 2020 09:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.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 7C82D1200E3; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 01:13:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.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 w9KGlCbAVLs6; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 01:13:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr140058.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.14.58]) (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 16A42120044; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 01:13:56 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=hwl7u9sw1cGcpox31kXNtvh6/mtpIWUoDZXIIfpk0ICxhGSJMqqRz6+81u6I7mV+SSIrONP3pencn2Gi/zDsF6CbTPFy9yknzhCaH5uvTmD1V/yVLr5jrJQ4SyhQivucCBXdxI6iLYSVnfMVL3ickITJn3u+sX8hgxQ+cm9FRazMTzPYDRhgTbDYOU0SPGuBldufBYroRAlLZqsK3f8vzQ5Bg+mbEFeYjLTRf/Aav9nRwduNAURV3B4mCBUq1q2L5K0sFd6bBx2TNG6gOWwQE4CqSv28ks58WRBfL+QFlYTviQV7cyqRfMxRxT3/Cwj/AxT3PUqR+YP6iYiHcZY6oA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=+HZVYJDJz8pUbut6VD7gQMKcbQVaBDKsEhnvTS+RChk=; b=O76wUw/5VA+LrYRrzhJ8zjadocK++wTy+MBOo3MjStMvnTss/VYZPlUATujgPKMejxPCF2R4M9ghksfWBoWzRZutPfN7BIgLEkpIEnD2TKDVZg0Y/VcWxNsK56ceLkl1lsv28UilCT6RC3a4UAj/rTck9Y0m5gxc/71teeT6cdlN9tm806wLHoAFy7O1XrKbF9vn0E4ZWMqL3lF6UZiSKLQP6PpWKoCLLRsbUyEcqGdWMG6mtwa0ddlizgEWa1i3gcsFQyE9lh4BaFcxr/gRo94wZQ0TrXoxvilsDbPoREF2ic/BrxUdleLzfLtBGXhxsi7vywVnziHv1Ls25MudXQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ericsson.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=ericsson.com; dkim=pass header.d=ericsson.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=+HZVYJDJz8pUbut6VD7gQMKcbQVaBDKsEhnvTS+RChk=; b=C0DuNdcBuv7r/t+2ZxSsfk20jsJLiYO2knUbW874UFJT8L/Ry+Y47FVgt/6TWKVsZmoNuvlIqhWDqETWN7lm/bkAFLD1iLEBlGlohPDyPXXx+4fh/YzT0NkBvZJnrSs/WCcQilaYaDOJjJCYMU25x7h2g3yjaD8D3k23UGMArH8=
Received: from HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.176.162.29) by HE1PR07MB3067.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.170.247.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2602.8; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 09:13:54 +0000
Received: from HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8b1:7025:5eb5:e8ab]) by HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8b1:7025:5eb5:e8ab%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2602.012; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 09:13:54 +0000
From: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>, "tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org" <tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] RFC 4301 on ECN codepoints (was RE: L4S vs SCE (Evolvability))
Thread-Index: AQHVwbiAkWeGUCTWv0qifsDxA73ixqfYqByQ
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 09:13:54 +0000
Message-ID: <HE1PR07MB4425DD996A111ADAA326CEBCC2230@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <HE1PR07MB44253C4F00626C004E36D150C2200@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <D0BACEEC-2913-48A6-9B43-1F9B0E8E682F@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D0BACEEC-2913-48A6-9B43-1F9B0E8E682F@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com;
x-originating-ip: [83.227.122.88]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 929a88cd-99b0-44b1-2bb4-08d7902d41b5
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HE1PR07MB3067:|HE1PR07MB3067:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <HE1PR07MB30679B15FDC52A089214579CC2230@HE1PR07MB3067.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:3383;
x-forefront-prvs: 0271483E06
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(396003)(136003)(376002)(366004)(346002)(39860400002)(51914003)(13464003)(189003)(199004)(7696005)(316002)(8936002)(52536014)(86362001)(71200400001)(66446008)(81166006)(81156014)(110136005)(2906002)(54906003)(8676002)(5660300002)(4326008)(478600001)(33656002)(66476007)(66556008)(66616009)(55016002)(76116006)(6506007)(966005)(53546011)(186003)(9686003)(66946007)(26005)(107886003)(64756008); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR07MB3067; H:HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ericsson.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009F_01D5C21E.7FFC3460"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 929a88cd-99b0-44b1-2bb4-08d7902d41b5
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Jan 2020 09:13:54.5615 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: Ju4mYS1n3vH//CAH8ZjcehnavdmlOu3mHOFjEQIRyAau+Xf06DxEmWjoSnnuZL2jLB1Sz1IABZRzFc8YGgrv7nkTeGnhkdvP1sXMZ4Zj0rcRLtvM82b3IRrn4N3VVhAT
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR07MB3067
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/sr6MAJ0fFR5BA0GfpFeP8Si7THU>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] RFC 4301 on ECN codepoints (was RE: L4S vs SCE (Evolvability))
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: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 09:14:00 -0000

Hi Jonathan
Thanks for the response. I assume then that RFC4301 should be listed as a
possible issue for SCE, as already pointed out by Bob ?

/Ingemar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
> Sent: den 2 januari 2020 23:04
> To: Ingemar Johansson S
> <ingemar.s.johansson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Cc: Black, David <David.Black@dell.com>; Bob Briscoe
<ietf@bobbriscoe.net>;
> Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>; Ingemar Johansson S
> <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>; tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org; tsvwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] RFC 4301 on ECN codepoints (was RE: L4S vs SCE
> (Evolvability))
> 
> > On 2 Jan, 2020, at 12:13 pm, Ingemar Johansson S
> <ingemar.s.johansson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > I read in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4301#section-5.1.2.1  the
> > following
> >
> >      (6) If the ECN field in the inner header is set to ECT(0) or
> >          ECT(1), where ECT is ECN-Capable Transport (ECT), and if the
> >          ECN field in the outer header is set to Congestion Experienced
> >          (CE), then set the ECN field in the inner header to CE;
> >          otherwise, make no change to the ECN field in the inner
> >          header.  (The IPv4 checksum changes when the ECN changes.)
> >
> > So, if we have an SCE flow that is tunneled:
> > 1) At the tunnel ingress, the ECN bits are copied to the outer header.
> > 2) Somewhere along the tunneled path an SCE compatible AQM remarks
> > from ECT '10' to SCE '01'.
> > 3) At tunnel egress, given rule #6 above, I understand that the inner
> > header will still be ECT '10'.
> >
> > In order words, the SCE congestion marks along the tunneled interface
> > become ignored and the queue will grow until packets are either CE
> > marked, or dropped.
> >
> > Is this a correct interpretation ?
> 
> Yes.  It would be as if the SCE-aware AQM on the tunnel path was merely
RFC-
> 3168 compliant, if the tunnel exit node correctly implements the above
> language.
> 
>  - Jonathan Morton

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email