Re: [RFC] gre: conform to RFC6040 ECN progogation

[Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 14:44 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> Linux GRE was likely written before this RFC and therefore does not
> conform to one of the rules in Section 4.2.  Default Tunnel Egress Behaviour.
> 
> The new code addresses:
>  o If the inner ECN field is Not-ECT, the decapsulator MUST NOT
>       propagate any other ECN codepoint onwards.  This is because the
>       inner Not-ECT marking is set by transports that rely on dropped
>       packets as an indication of congestion and would not understand or
>       respond to any other ECN codepoint [RFC4774].  Specifically:
> 
>       *  If the inner ECN field is Not-ECT and the outer ECN field is
>          CE, the decapsulator MUST drop the packet.
> 
>       *  If the inner ECN field is Not-ECT and the outer ECN field is
>          Not-ECT, ECT(0), or ECT(1), the decapsulator MUST forward the
>          outgoing packet with the ECN field cleared to Not-ECT.
> 
> This was caught by Chris Wright while reviewing VXLAN.
> This code has not been tested with real ECN through tunnel.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>

It seems dangerous to me without any logging ?

One could argue that the outer ECN field should not be CE if the inner
was Not-ECT

It means :
1) the encapsulator set ECT(0), or ECT(1) and a congestioned hop set CE
2) the encapsulator set CE

1) or 2) while inner was not-ECT (!!!)

If a router does such a thing, we should log a message to help
diagnostics.

By the way other tunnels probably have the same issues.