Re: [mpls] Martin Stiemerling's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: (with DISCUSS)

Gmail <> Wed, 06 January 2016 20:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAE671A01AA; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:02:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sh-QDuyFFOeO; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:02:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E7B81A01D7; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:02:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id u188so73097373wmu.1; Wed, 06 Jan 2016 12:02:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=F4tWwZIwlu6/RwNlSHE6pe8TzvCqdEOzaExVhev4Esk=; b=c0rlcSFYmdE2cfG9HcZ9HcxEJjOujmJ01JNfh4ZE2jKxlL7wRxYJDV9bXEuzSZRMX6 ZKkkwTHxlykbp8dG5BbYqnezMw1d+lKQa6kdTISPYTunbMU6JjAojdulwYkWOQN28sC4 ybM1jvg3XfurWA8bAo/HtarxOuP6HI+cUcGRVlC9ScCDxSHK+Dd3AXTRcghw/QHTH7/U xpKqZrBHsqiaqWLXNAQXPZO6F4BG9ifcjrWmWAXErgzwqd8Wr47BNZHYYKOCDltSBgck z48Wa60A50uLdiWJmWullOL9dBlVPhZslYoNoOsK/YjuaPqwRjDumvCvTunQP0Hs4R7s sPBA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id i141mr12800318wmd.87.1452110522589; Wed, 06 Jan 2016 12:02:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id l194sm10263547wmb.14.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 06 Jan 2016 12:02:01 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Message-Id: <>
From: Gmail <>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 17:10:40 +0000
To: Martin Stiemerling <>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (13C75)
Archived-At: <>
Cc:,, The IESG <>,
Subject: Re: [mpls] Martin Stiemerling's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: (with DISCUSS)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 20:02:21 -0000


It is  a fundamental tenet of MPLS is that the network is well managed with the operators paying significant attention to traffic planning, I therefore think that it is reasonable to assume that they would also pay adequate attention to their UDP management traffic.

Loss is so light in these networks that the interval between loss measurements needs to be long to see any loss at all, thus I would normally expect us to be talking packets per minute or packets per hour rather than packets per second, and this would be on links with GB+ capacity. Similarly it makes little sense to make delay measurements very frequently.

In both cases the amount of traffic will be minuscule compared to the IPFIX over UDP traffic that that many operators will already will running.

I thus fear that you raise the congestion daemon without proper regard to the practicalities of this type of application.


Sent from my iPad

> On 5 Jan 2016, at 21:47, Martin Stiemerling <> wrote:
> Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: Discuss
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> Please refer to
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I am in favour of publishing this document, but I have two major points
> that are not addressed in the document by now:
> 1) It is not clear for anybody what the expected size and sending
> frequency of such MPLS-PLDM over IP/UDP responses are. This will
> influence any measures an operator has to take in order to assure that
> there is no congestion caused by these messages. I can understand that
> this cannot be foreseen, but a few words considering this fact are
> excellent to have in the document. 
> 2) This leads to my second point: the lack of any reference to RFC 5405
> "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines for Application Designers" and the content
> out of this RFC that is applicable for this draft. There is no discussion
> about this at all. Please note well that this is BCP 145. 
> With regard to point 2): I can try to find some help from the transport
> area, in case you need help.
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list