Fred,
At 22:39 04/11/2013, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Nov 4, 2013, at 2:03 PM, Bob Briscoe <[email protected]> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Pls respond if you support this being adopted as a work-group
item in the IETF transport services w-g (tsvwg). The WG chairs need
visibility of interest.
And don't respond if we don't support it? :-)
I have a very basic question. For IP/IP tunnels, such as GRE, the
ECN flags are defined, and I would imagine that RFC 2983 could be
interpreted as saying what one does with flags (when you move the
TOS octet, move 8 bits, whether in->out or out->in). For non-IP
tunnels, with the exception of MPLS, the IETF doesn't define the header.
How does one add ECN to a protocol we don't maintain? If we maintain
it, are we already done?
The idea is to issue liaison statements to make the relevant stds
bodies aware of this. E.g.:
- to 3GPP for GTP,
- to IEEE for 802.
The IETF maintains a number of the relevant tunnelling protocols it
mentions, e.g.
L2TP, GRE, PPTP.
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe, BT
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
