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

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

On 22/01/2014 07:51, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> This is not at all the argument I am making. My emails have not touched at all on the issue of zero checksums.
>
> My point is that UDP encapsulation changes the potential *reach* of congestion-uncontrolled traffic that was otherwise limited to L2 networks.
>
> Lars
How about if text is introduced recommending the use of an
OAM between tunnel endpoints that monitors packet loss.

The tunnel endpoints need to know if the tunnel is broken
anyway and on hitting a loss threshold they can  alarm,
redirect the traffic, or shutdown, depending on configuration,
topology and the needs of the operator.

You probably also need pro-active CV to make the whole
system work.

This many not necessarily be fast or elegant, but if there
is significant misdelivery or congestion loss, traffic will
eventually cease.

Stewart