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

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@xxxxxxxxx> · Fri, 24 Jan 2014 18:04:50 +0000



    On 24/01/2014 15:01, John E Drake
      wrote:

    
        Ed,
         
        I
            completely agree with your email, below.  As an aside, the
            L2 packets that Lars is worried about are transported over a
            pseudo-wire using MPLS, so the logical place to place
            congestion awareness is in the pseudo-wire endpoints.  I
            remember that this was in the PWE3’s charter some time ago.
            
         
        Yours
            Irrespectively,
         
        John
      
    
    The charter says:

    
    Whilst a service provider may traffic engineer their network

    in such a way that PW traffic will not cause significant

    congestion, a PW deployed by an end-user may cause

    congestion of the underlying PSN. Suitable congestion

    avoidance mechanisms are therefore needed to protect the

    Internet from the unconstrained deployment of PWs. Congestion 

    avoidance may be more difficult with P2MP pseudowires than

    P2P pseudowires. The WG will consider both cases.

    
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stein-pwe3-congcons/ 

    has expired, but if you are interested in working on the subject

    I am sure the authors would be delighted to talk to you.

    
    Stewart