Re: [mpls] [tsvwg] OT (was Re: draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp was RE: gre-in-udp draft (was: RE: Milestones changed for tsvwg WG))

[Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>
Randy Bush writes:
> 
> [ you insist on cc:ing me, so you get to endure my opinions ]

Not a problem (this time).  :-)

> > it seems that there are no valid statistics for the current Internet
> > to sustain your case.
>  
> as we discussed privately, there seem to be no real measurements to
> sustain any case.  this is all conjecturbation.
>  
> what i do not understand is why, given the lack of solid evidence that
> we are in a safe space, you and others are not willing to spend a few
> euro cents to have a reasonable level of assurance at this layer.
>  
> randy


Randy,

See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg11279.html
for reasons why routers would want to avoid having to fill in a
checksum.  It would have been more feasible for an FCS at the end of
the packet for these cases but the UDP checksum is in the front.

This entire discussion is over putting in a SHOULD rather than a MUST
in two places, UDP checksum and congestion control, plus deferring
defining the congestion control for MPLS over UDP until deployments
show a need for it.

Curtis