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

Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Sun, 12 January 2014 12:18 UTC

Return-Path: <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
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 166281AE064; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 04:18:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.589
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311] autolearn=no
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 VMdSo1dvBmMt; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 04:18:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from the-host.seacom.mu (ge-0.ln-01-jnb.za.seacomnet.com [41.87.104.245]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 689541AE063; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 04:18:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=the-host.localnet) by the-host.seacom.mu with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>) id 1W2JzY-0007Lo-9i; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 14:18:12 +0200
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Organization: SEACOM
To: mpls@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 14:18:11 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.37.6-24-desktop; KDE/4.6.0; i686; ; )
References: <20140102151419.4692.48031.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52D01383.2080509@joelhalpern.com> <8DCFAFEE-2B06-4334-A5D7-7698D8D3081A@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <8DCFAFEE-2B06-4334-A5D7-7698D8D3081A@netapp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1774670.NvQXsO8Ws6"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201401121418.11663.mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Cc: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, 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
Reply-To: mark.tinka@seacom.mu
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: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:18:37 -0000

On Friday, January 10, 2014 06:09:45 PM Eggert, Lars wrote:

> The whole point of running MPLS is to create networks in
> which paths are provisionable, so this is usually not an
> issue. But if you start sticking MPLS inside of UDP,
> those packets can go anywhere on the net, so you need
> mechanisms to control the rate of that traffic if it
> causes congestion, or at the very least you need to be
> able to stop the traffic if it creates severe
> congestion.

What most networks do is just police/shape traffic at 
whatever rate you can afford to pay for, as it enters/leaves 
the provider's network.

As MPLS is in UDP, all the provider sees is IP, as they 
should. I don't think there will be any "special treatment" 
to UDP traffic carrying MPLS, vs. UDP traffic carrying other 
payloads.

Mark.