%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-23 instead of this revision. @techreport{ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-05, number = {draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-05}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim/05/}, author = {Bob Briscoe}, title = {{Propagating Explicit Congestion Notification Across IP Tunnel Headers Separated by a Shim}}, pagetotal = 20, year = , month = , day = , 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 updates RFC 6040 to clarify that its scope includes tunnels where two IP headers are separated by at least one shim header that is not sufficient on its own for wide area packet forwarding. It surveys widely deployed IP tunnelling protocols separated by such shim header(s) and updates the specifications of those that do not mention ECN propagation (L2TPv2, L2TPv3, GRE, Teredo and AMT). This specification also updates RFC 6040 with configuration requirements needed to make any legacy tunnel ingress safe.}, }