Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On 2014-1-13, at 10:16, Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> No conflict at all. What I meant is: for those clients of MPLS which are not TCP-friendly (case 2&3 as described in Section 3.1.3 of RFC5405), they should never be transported over the unprovisioned path (e.g., the Internet). Insteads, they should only be transported over a provisioned path in a restricted networking environment. As a result, there is no need for the congestion control mechanism for them.

I agree, but I think we need a safety mechanism when such traffic does end up on the general Internet (because operators may not read the RFC, or there may be configuration errors, etc.)

Even when running inside a provisioned domain, you probably want some sort of safety net, like a circuit breaker that detects if your tunnel is experiencing/causing severe congestion, and shut it down.

Lars

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]