IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Fri, 10 January 2014 08:47 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@netapp.com>
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 4D2241AD0F0; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:47:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.349
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 scnrZ1SSCbdp; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:47:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx11.netapp.com (mx11.netapp.com [216.240.18.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC1D51A9313; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:47:45 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.95,637,1384329600"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="95233738"
Received: from vmwexceht03-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.241]) by mx11-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 10 Jan 2014 00:47:36 -0800
Received: from SACEXCMBX06-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.9.60]) by vmwexceht03-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.241]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:47:35 -0800
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AQHPB81hZzPPQlRcgk6ua2U45NfiYJp7LVMAgAK2KoCAAFQ2gA==
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:47:35 +0000
Message-ID: <43B89809-F517-4BE2-BE1B-748A4B78FC7F@netapp.com>
References: <20140102151419.4692.48031.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5933BB7D-2D2D-4145-A0B2-E92C8DA25844@netapp.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08242A8E@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08242A8E@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.106.53.51]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_83EDAABB-5D4B-4EB6-8739-F7B6E64D302C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 07:17:36 -0800
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:47:47 -0000

Hi,

that sounds good. What congestion control are you going to be specifying for your tunnel?

Lars

On 2014-1-10, at 4:46, Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi Lars,
> 
> Thanks a lot for your comments.
> 
> I wonder whether the following modified text for Congestion Consideration section is OK from your point of view:
> 
> Since the MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation causes MPLS packets to be forwarded through "UDP tunnels", the congestion control guidelines for UDP tunnels as defined in Section 3.1.3 of [RFC5405] SHOULD be followed. Specifically, MPLS can carry a number of different protocols as payloads. When the payload traffic is IP-based and congestion-controlled, the UDP tunnel SHOULD NOT employ its own congestion control mechanism, because congestion losses of tunneled traffic will already trigger an appropriate congestion response at the original senders of the tunneled traffic. When the payload traffic is not known to be IP-based, or is known to be IP-based but not congestion-controlled, the UDP tunnel SHOULD employ an appropriate congestion control mechanism. Furthermore, because UDP tunnels are usually bulk-transfer applications as far as the intermediate routers are concerned, the guidelines as defined in Section 3.1.1 of [RFC5405] SHOULD apply.
> 
> Best regards,
> Xiaohu
> 
>> -----邮件原件-----
>> 发件人: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Eggert, Lars
>> 发送时间: 2014年1月8日 18:22
>> 收件人: IETF
>> 抄送: mpls@ietf.org
>> 主题: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS
>> in UDP) to Proposed Standard
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On 2014-1-2, at 16:14, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:
>>> - 'Encapsulating MPLS in UDP'
>>> <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> as Proposed Standard
>> 
>> 
>> this document needs to describe how it addresses the issues raised in BCP145
>> (RFC5405). It already contains some text about messages sizes and congestion
>> considerations, which is great. Unfortunately, the text about congestion
>> considerations is not fully in line with RFC5405.
>> 
>> Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email