Hi Lars,
We have a decision to make. Currently, the scope of the document is limited to
MTU and fragmentation issues. So, the reassembly issues in Section 5.3 of 3168
are clearly within scope.
However, DSCP handling has nothing to do with MTU and fragmentation. We could
include them, but that would mean expanding the scope of the document. Does the
WG want to do this?
Opinions?
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eggert, Lars [mailto:l...@netapp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:21 AM
> To: Ronald Bonica; Bob Briscoe
> Cc: Internet Area
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu and ECN
>
> 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.
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
