draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-13.txt   draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-14.txt 
Transport Area Working Group B. Briscoe Transport Area Working Group B. Briscoe
Internet-Draft Independent Internet-Draft Independent
Updates: 6040, 2661, 2784, 3931, 4380, March 8, 2021 Updates: 6040, 2661, 2784, 3931, 4380, May 24, 2021
7450 (if approved) 7450 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: September 9, 2021 Expires: November 25, 2021
Propagating Explicit Congestion Notification Across IP Tunnel Headers Propagating Explicit Congestion Notification Across IP Tunnel Headers
Separated by a Shim Separated by a Shim
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-13 draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-14
Abstract Abstract
RFC 6040 on "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Notification" made the RFC 6040 on "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Notification" made the
rules for propagation of ECN consistent for all forms of IP in IP rules for propagation of ECN consistent for all forms of IP in IP
tunnel. This specification updates RFC 6040 to clarify that its tunnel. This specification updates RFC 6040 to clarify that its
scope includes tunnels where two IP headers are separated by at least scope includes tunnels where two IP headers are separated by at least
one shim header that is not sufficient on its own for wide area one shim header that is not sufficient on its own for wide area
packet forwarding. It surveys widely deployed IP tunnelling packet forwarding. It surveys widely deployed IP tunnelling
protocols that use such shim header(s) and updates the specifications protocols that use such shim header(s) and updates the specifications
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 skipping to change at page 1, line 43
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 25, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 7, line 24 skipping to change at page 7, line 24
The following requirements update RFC6040, which omitted handling of The following requirements update RFC6040, which omitted handling of
the ECN field during fragmentation or reassembly. These changes the ECN field during fragmentation or reassembly. These changes
might alter how many ECN-marked packets are propagated by a tunnel might alter how many ECN-marked packets are propagated by a tunnel
that fragments packets, but this would not raise any backward that fragments packets, but this would not raise any backward
compatibility issues: compatibility issues:
If a tunnel ingress fragments a packet, it MUST set the outer ECN If a tunnel ingress fragments a packet, it MUST set the outer ECN
field of all the fragments to the same value as it would have set if field of all the fragments to the same value as it would have set if
it had not fragmented the packet. it had not fragmented the packet.
Section 5.3 of [RFC3168] defines the process that a tunnel egress Section 5.3 of [RFC3168] specifies ECN requirements for reassembly of
follows to reassemble sets of outer fragments sets of outer fragments [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels] into packets. The
[I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels] into packets. following two additional requirements apply at a tunnel egress:
During reassembly of outer fragments [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels], if o During reassembly of outer fragments [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels],
the ECN fields of the outer headers being reassembled into a single if the ECN fields of the outer headers being reassembled into a
packet consist of a mixture of Not-ECT and other ECN codepoints, the single packet consist of a mixture of Not-ECT and other ECN
packet MUST be discarded. codepoints, the packet MUST be discarded.
If there is mix of ECT(0) and ECT(1) fragments, then the reassembled o If there is mix of ECT(0) and ECT(1) fragments, then the
packet MUST be set to either ECT(0) or ECT(1). In this case, reassembled packet MUST be set to either ECT(0) or ECT(1). In
reassembly SHOULD take into account that the RFC series has so far this case, reassembly SHOULD take into account that the RFC series
ensured that ECT(0) and ECT(1) can either be considered equivalent, has so far ensured that ECT(0) and ECT(1) can either be considered
or they can provide 2 levels of congestion severity, where the equivalent, or they can provide 2 levels of congestion severity,
ranking of severity from highest to lowest is CE, ECT(1), ECT(0) where the ranking of severity from highest to lowest is CE,
[RFC6040]. ECT(1), ECT(0) [RFC6040].
6. IP-in-IP Tunnels with Tightly Coupled Shim Headers 6. IP-in-IP Tunnels with Tightly Coupled Shim Headers
There follows a list of specifications of encapsulations with tightly There follows a list of specifications of encapsulations with tightly
coupled shim header(s), in rough chronological order. The list is coupled shim header(s), in rough chronological order. The list is
confined to standards track or widely deployed protocols. The list confined to standards track or widely deployed protocols. The list
is not necessarily exhaustive so, for the avoidance of doubt, the is not necessarily exhaustive so, for the avoidance of doubt, the
scope of RFC 6040 is defined in Section 3 and is not limited to this scope of RFC 6040 is defined in Section 3 and is not limited to this
list. list.
skipping to change at page 8, line 30 skipping to change at page 8, line 30
o LISP (Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol) [RFC6830]; o LISP (Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol) [RFC6830];
o AMT (Automatic Multicast Tunneling) [RFC7450]; o AMT (Automatic Multicast Tunneling) [RFC7450];
o VXLAN (Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network) [RFC7348] and VXLAN- o VXLAN (Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network) [RFC7348] and VXLAN-
GPE [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]; GPE [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe];
o The Network Service Header (NSH [RFC8300]) for Service Function o The Network Service Header (NSH [RFC8300]) for Service Function
Chaining (SFC); Chaining (SFC);
o Geneve [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve]; o Geneve [RFC8926];
o GUE (Generic UDP Encapsulation) [I-D.ietf-intarea-gue]; o GUE (Generic UDP Encapsulation) [I-D.ietf-intarea-gue];
o Direct tunnelling of an IP packet within a UDP/IP datagram (see o Direct tunnelling of an IP packet within a UDP/IP datagram (see
Section 3.1.11 of [RFC8085]); Section 3.1.11 of [RFC8085]);
o TCP Encapsulation of IKE and IPsec Packets (see Section 12.5 of o TCP Encapsulation of IKE and IPsec Packets (see Section 12.5 of
[RFC8229]). [RFC8229]).
Some of the listed protocols enable encapsulation of a variety of Some of the listed protocols enable encapsulation of a variety of
skipping to change at page 18, line 16 skipping to change at page 18, line 16
the TimeIn project. The views expressed here are solely those of the the TimeIn project. The views expressed here are solely those of the
authors. authors.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines] [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines]
Briscoe, B. and J. Kaippallimalil, "Guidelines for Adding Briscoe, B. and J. Kaippallimalil, "Guidelines for Adding
Congestion Notification to Protocols that Encapsulate IP", Congestion Notification to Protocols that Encapsulate IP",
draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-14 (work in draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-15 (work in
progress), November 2020. progress), March 2021.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
skipping to change at page 19, line 41 skipping to change at page 19, line 41
[I-D.ietf-intarea-gue] [I-D.ietf-intarea-gue]
Herbert, T., Yong, L., and O. Zia, "Generic UDP Herbert, T., Yong, L., and O. Zia, "Generic UDP
Encapsulation", draft-ietf-intarea-gue-09 (work in Encapsulation", draft-ietf-intarea-gue-09 (work in
progress), October 2019. progress), October 2019.
[I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels] [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]
Touch, J. and M. Townsley, "IP Tunnels in the Internet Touch, J. and M. Townsley, "IP Tunnels in the Internet
Architecture", draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-10 (work in Architecture", draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-10 (work in
progress), September 2019. progress), September 2019.
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve]
Gross, J., Ganga, I., and T. Sridhar, "Geneve: Generic
Network Virtualization Encapsulation", draft-ietf-
nvo3-geneve-16 (work in progress), March 2020.
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe] [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]
Maino, F., Kreeger, L., and U. Elzur, "Generic Protocol (Editor), F. M., (editor), L. K., and U. E. (editor),
Extension for VXLAN (VXLAN-GPE)", draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan- "Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN (VXLAN-GPE)", draft-
gpe-10 (work in progress), July 2020. ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-11 (work in progress), March 2021.
[I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-ecn-support] [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-ecn-support]
Eastlake, D., Briscoe, B., and A. Malis, "Explicit Eastlake, D. E., Briscoe, B., Li, Y., Malis, A. G., and X.
Congestion Notification (ECN) and Congestion Feedback Wei, "Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) and
Using the Network Service Header (NSH)", draft-ietf-sfc- Congestion Feedback Using the Network Service Header (NSH)
nsh-ecn-support-04 (work in progress), December 2020. and IPFIX", draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-ecn-support-05 (work in
progress), April 2021.
[RFC1701] Hanks, S., Li, T., Farinacci, D., and P. Traina, "Generic [RFC1701] Hanks, S., Li, T., Farinacci, D., and P. Traina, "Generic
Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 1701, Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 1701,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1701, October 1994, DOI 10.17487/RFC1701, October 1994,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1701>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1701>.
[RFC2637] Hamzeh, K., Pall, G., Verthein, W., Taarud, J., Little, [RFC2637] Hamzeh, K., Pall, G., Verthein, W., Taarud, J., Little,
W., and G. Zorn, "Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol W., and G. Zorn, "Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol
(PPTP)", RFC 2637, DOI 10.17487/RFC2637, July 1999, (PPTP)", RFC 2637, DOI 10.17487/RFC2637, July 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2637>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2637>.
skipping to change at page 22, line 19 skipping to change at page 22, line 10
[RFC8229] Pauly, T., Touati, S., and R. Mantha, "TCP Encapsulation [RFC8229] Pauly, T., Touati, S., and R. Mantha, "TCP Encapsulation
of IKE and IPsec Packets", RFC 8229, DOI 10.17487/RFC8229, of IKE and IPsec Packets", RFC 8229, DOI 10.17487/RFC8229,
August 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8229>. August 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8229>.
[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., [RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300, "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018, DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.
[RFC8926] Gross, J., Ed., Ganga, I., Ed., and T. Sridhar, Ed.,
"Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation",
RFC 8926, DOI 10.17487/RFC8926, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8926>.
Author's Address Author's Address
Bob Briscoe Bob Briscoe
Independent Independent
UK UK
EMail: ietf@bobbriscoe.net EMail: ietf@bobbriscoe.net
URI: http://bobbriscoe.net/ URI: http://bobbriscoe.net/
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
33 lines changed or deleted 34 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/