In message <DB6CF60F-FFBA-47DA-9FD6-7288CCB260A6@xxxxxxxxxx> "Eggert, Lars" writes: > On 2014-1-14, at 15:20, Stewart Bryant <stbryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yes, the inner (real) transport header is the only meaningful place > > to apply congestion avoidance. > > But what if the inner traffic isn't congestion controlled? > > Lars Lars, The exact same thing will happen in all of the following cases: NON-congestion controlled application --over-- UDP --over-- IP --over-- L2 NON-congestion controlled application --over-- UDP --over-- IP --over-- MPLS --over-- L2 NON-congestion controlled application --over-- UDP --over-- IP --over-- MPLS --over-- UDP --over-- IP --over-- L2 The non-congestion controlled application is what needs fixing. It would be wrong to try to put congestion control at every layer underneath the non-congestion controlled application except perhaps as a transparent replacement for UDP and that is out of scope for a draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp discussion. Curtis