Subject: [PCN] Fwd: RFC 6040 on Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Notification

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:29:04 +0100

Hi Bob,

congratulations to this RFC and thanks a lot for all your work! This 
clarification and streamlining is important for the extensibility of the 
Internet, and in particular for PCN of course.

Best wishes,

     Michael

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: 	RFC 6040 on Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Notification
Datum: 	Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:27:37 -0800 (PST)
Von: 	[email-masked]
An: 	[email-masked], [email-masked]
CC: 	[email-masked], [email-masked]

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

         RFC 6040

         Title:      Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Notification
         Author:     B. Briscoe
         Status:     Standards Track
         Stream:     IETF
         Date:       November 2010
         Mailbox:    [email-masked]
         Pages:      35
         Characters: 89412
         Updates:    RFC3168, RFC4301, RFC4774

         I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-10.txt

         URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6040.txt

This document redefines how the explicit congestion notification
(ECN) field of the IP header should be constructed on entry to and
exit from any IP-in-IP tunnel.  On encapsulation, it updates RFC 3168
to bring all IP-in-IP tunnels (v4 or v6) into line with RFC 4301
IPsec ECN processing.  On decapsulation, it updates both RFC 3168 and
RFC 4301 to add new behaviours for previously unused combinations of
inner and outer headers.  The new rules ensure the ECN field is
correctly propagated across a tunnel whether it is used to signal one
or two severity levels of congestion; whereas before, only one
severity level was supported.  Tunnel endpoints can be updated in any
order without affecting pre-existing uses of the ECN field, thus
ensuring backward compatibility.  Nonetheless, operators wanting to
support two severity levels (e.g., for pre-congestion notification --
PCN) can require compliance with this new specification.  A thorough
analysis of the reasoning for these changes and the implications is
included.  In the unlikely event that the new rules do not meet a
specific need, RFC 4774 gives guidance on designing alternate ECN
semantics, and this document extends that to include tunnelling
issues.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]

This document is a product of the Transport Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol.

STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track
protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions
for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the Internet
Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and
status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
   http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
   http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist

For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html.
For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to [email-masked].  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.

The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC