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

[Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>
Xuxiaohu writes:
 
> Hi Curtis and Joel,
>  
> Thanks a lot for your detailed comments.
>  
> Hi Lars,
>  
> I wonder whether the following compromised text for the Congestion
> Consideration section of this doc is roughly acceptable to you.
>  
>    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 MPLS 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 MPLS 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 which is outside the scope
>    of this document.
> 
> Best regards,
> Xiaohu

This works for me.  If deployments indicate a need for congestion
control another document can be written.  I doubt it will be needed.
If someone (Lars perhaps) feels a pressing need to wirte a congestion
control for MPLS over UDP document (or for any tunneling over UDP)
regardless of deployment experience, then they can go ahead.

Whether it works for Lars may be the issue.

Curtis