IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Thu, 30 January 2014 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
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 7A4651A0451; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:32:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.735
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.735 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] 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 4XVv_hmBleDt; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:32:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1527C1A044E; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:32:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 7BBD018C1C1; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:32:00 -0500 (EST)
To: ietf@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20140130193200.7BBD018C1C1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:32:00 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
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 19:32:05 -0000

    > From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>

    > Simple solution -- don't use UDP.

Yes, because if we use a different protocol, any potential congestion will
magically disappear!

	Noel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email