Hi, On Aug 6, 2013, at 19:34, Ronald Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> wrote: > Section 5.3 of RFC 3168 specifies procedures for handling the ECN bit when > reassembling fragmented packets. These rules must be observed by any device > that reassembles fragmented packets, including tunnel egress routers. It > would be reasonable to make note of this in draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu.
agreed. You should also talk about what happens with the DSCP. > Section 9.1 of RFC 3168 as well as RFC 6040, specify procedures for > propagating ECN bits between the tunnel payload and delivery header. These > rules apply to all tunneled packets, regardless of whether they are > fragmented. Because the scope of draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu is limited to > MTU and fragmentation issues, a discussion of these rules seems to be beyond > the scope of draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu. Agreed. However, given that the GRE spec predates the ECN spec, what are GRE implementations actually doing with the ECN/DSCP fields? Unfortunately, 3168 did not update 2784, although GRE can also provide an IP-in-IP tunnel type. Lars PS: CC'ing Bob, who also commented.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
