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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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
>>