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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

+1

I don't even care if the safety breaker is a little late, e.g., a few
hundreds of packets (as might be needed for efficient implementation).

Joe

On 1/13/2014 1:42 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2014-1-13, at 10:16, Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> No conflict at all. What I meant is: for those clients of MPLS which are not TCP-friendly (case 2&3 as described in Section 3.1.3 of RFC5405), they should never be transported over the unprovisioned path (e.g., the Internet). Insteads, they should only be transported over a provisioned path in a restricted networking environment. As a result, there is no need for the congestion control mechanism for them.
> 
> I agree, but I think we need a safety mechanism when such traffic does end up on the general Internet (because operators may not read the RFC, or there may be configuration errors, etc.)
> 
> Even when running inside a provisioned domain, you probably want some sort of safety net, like a circuit breaker that detects if your tunnel is experiencing/causing severe congestion, and shut it down.
> 
> Lars
>