IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Thu, 30 January 2014 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D901A046D; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:21:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AKI4IW1gk-B3; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:21:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oa0-x22c.google.com (mail-oa0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 976B01A044E; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:21:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id g12so4241019oah.3 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:21:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=lX84fSBDCsmb1d6Cc5ErFgVjr8He8AVteXkOmKgaEr4=; b=dy4yoH1CHUGeSiqy4bxUXkDrZItbCs18n159xckfq4j67CUxAll6cne9TbexjT5M3k mQofUY5fJyUT9bwhXe41xyHEn/dTBIpoIQLjGcs1zvt3TAvGv6iYlgG3tJ+VYbYl+p73 VTC6jw7rz8BkEofJ+SuzXyHfgUMRhlX9sHVy5rZMzCdcswdqtTxPYL9vby7nea6woIA6 shuhhZYZsAS9DI6ahxX+W0CQ1DDlG/1HUM10rpi3Q6DzDhgO6DNtFwXifO4LOMPzErmY aA8ViboiyjKWEjd26zdHxM9yC3B8NeETl/4B/G6soRgLi+shm6M/UAZlptvpUjY34XQA /Cdg==
X-Received: by 10.60.56.200 with SMTP id c8mr1922947oeq.80.1391113269117; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:21:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.48.9 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:20:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52EAA7F7.1010502@isi.edu>
References: <201401240320.s0O3KsR9013700@maildrop2.v6ds.occnc.com> <52E2BBC0.2030203@isi.edu> <52E68C12.2050308@cisco.com> <98034F7E-47CF-4ABE-A199-A9DB4DACBC2E@isi.edu> <52E6AA0B.1050600@bogus.com> <52E6AB15.2080907@isi.edu> <52E6B128.8060306@joelhalpern.com> <47d85636e70c4d6f86f199a274bcdcb0@CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <52EAA7F7.1010502@isi.edu>
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:20:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPv4CP9JURzh44XtX5Q418ZBfcBAVctyGK6hEVjj8tp-97bs4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e015370943f8b6904f135ccb0"
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, "EXT - joelja@bogus.com" <joelja@bogus.com>, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 20:21:14 -0000

There are two topics that should be separate: checksums and congestion
control.

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:

> I think we agree that if the router needs faster, then the router gets
> faster.
>

That's in response to Ross, about checksums.


> Where we disagree is whether the "bull in the china shop" gets to ignore
> the rules of the road to get what it wants.
>

congestion


> I.e., I won't disagree on what router vendors want or what they're willing
> to support (though I will disagree on what hardware can do, based on
> experience).
>

checksums


> I will disagree that routers get to run roughshod over the rest of us to
> do it.
>
> Simple solution -- don't use UDP.


congestion.

Joe, do I understand correctly that you've conceded about checksums and now
you want to talk about congestion again?

swb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email