Propagating Explicit Congestion Notification Across IP Tunnel Headers Separated by a Shim
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (tsvwg WG)
Last updated 2016-11-23 (latest revision 2016-11-21)
Replaces draft-briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040bis, draft-briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document (wg milestone: Sep 2017 - Submit 'Propagating ... )
Document shepherd David Black
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to "David Black" <david.black@dell.com>
Transport Area Working Group                                  B. Briscoe
Internet-Draft                                Simula Research Laboratory
Updates: 6040, 2661, 1701, 2784, 2637,                 November 15, 2016
         3931 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: May 19, 2017

 Propagating Explicit Congestion Notification Across IP Tunnel Headers
                          Separated by a Shim
                 draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-00

Abstract

   RFC 6040 on "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Notification" made the
   rules for propagation of ECN consistent for all forms of IP in IP
   tunnel.  This specification extends the scope of RFC 6040 to include
   tunnels where two IP headers are separated by a shim header that
   cannot stand alone.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 19, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must

Briscoe                   Expires May 19, 2017                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               ECN Tunnelling                November 2016

   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Scope of RFC 6040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  IP-in-IP Tunnels with Tightly Coupled Shim Headers  . . . . .   2
   4.  Specific Updates to Existing RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  IANA Considerations (to be removed by RFC Editor) . . . . . .   4
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Comments Solicited  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Scope of RFC 6040

   RFC 6040 on "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Notification"
   [RFC6040] made the rules for propagation of Explicit Congestion
   Notification (ECN [RFC3168]) consistent for all forms of IP in IP
   tunnel.  The scope of RFC 6040 was stated as

      "...ECN field processing at encapsulation and decapsulation for
      any IP-in-IP tunnelling, whether IPsec or non-IPsec tunnels.  It
      applies irrespective of whether IPv4 or IPv6 is used for either
      the inner or outer headers. ..."

   A common pattern for many tunnelling protocols is to encapsulate an
   inner IP header with shim header(s) then an outer IP header.  To
   clear up confusion, this specification clarifies that the scope of
   RFC 6040 includes any IP-in-IP tunnel, including those with shim
   header(s) between the IP headers.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

3.  IP-in-IP Tunnels with Tightly Coupled Shim Headers

   In many cases the shim header(s) and the outer IP header are always
   added (or removed) as part of the same process.  We call this a
   tightly coupled shim header.  Processing the shim and outer together
   is often necessary because the shim(s) are not sufficient for packet
   forwarding in their own right; not unless complemented by an outer
   header.

Briscoe                   Expires May 19, 2017                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft               ECN Tunnelling                November 2016
Show full document text