ECN Over Aggregating Tunnels
draft-duke-tsvwg-ecn-aggregating-tunnels-00
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Martin Duke | ||
| Last updated | 2023-02-16 (Latest revision 2022-08-15) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) provides two bits in the IP header for routers to signal congestion to endpoints without resorting to packet loss. RFC6040 provided guidance for how IP-in-IP tunnels should transfer (ECN) markings between inner and outer IP headers. However, that document implicitly assumes that no more than one inner packet is present in an outer packet. As numerous tunneling technologies have since emerged that break this assumption, further guidance is needed.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)