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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 1/30/2014 12:20 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
> There are two topics that should be separate: checksums and congestion
> control.

Agreed.

> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     I think we agree that if the router needs faster, then the router
>     gets faster.
>
> That's in response to Ross, about checksums.

Also about the complaint that routers run to fast to run any sort of 
congestion algorithm, including circuit breakers (which is clearly false).

>     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

Yes, in the sense that incorrect checksums should be checked at the 
egress only anyway, and thus ignoring them would only impact the network 
after the egress.

No, in the sense that anything that peeks inside a UDP header has the 
right to want to check whether that data is uncorrupted - that includes 
things like NATs.

>     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

Both, as per above.

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

Both. If you want the benefits of UDP, pay the penalty. If you don't 
want the penalty, don't use UDP.

I don't buy the claims that there's a need here to eat cake and have it too.

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

I'm talking about the overall argument, which has circled back to "we 
need to do what vendors are willing to do", rather than "vendors need to 
play nice in the Internet that they're making money off of".

Joe