Re: [mpls] 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]

 





On 1/14/2014 7:23 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Isn't that basically the problem of the inner traffic sender, not the
problem of the tunnel that is carrying the traffic?
Asking tunnel's to solve the problem of applications with undesirable
behavior seems backwards.

By that argument, apps using TCP shouldn't expect the transport to control congestion. They ought to control it at the app layer.

Tunneled MPLS, when encapsulated inside UDP, *is* the "application". UDP expects the app to deal with congestion, so it's entirely reasonable for UDP to expect the tunneling system to do this.

Joe


Yours,
Joel

On 1/14/14 10:20 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
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





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