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

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

On 1/14/2014 11:06 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2014-1-14, at 16:39, Scott Brim <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Lars, I know we're repeating arguments from the last decade. The
>> choice is between (1) specifying congestion control around the
>> substrate UDP that can be turned off if it causes problems, or (2)
>> specifying nothing at this time and adding it later if operators want
>> it.
>>
>> I guess if this can be written as a SHOULD, up to the implementor's
>> discretion, then okay.
> 
> I don't think we can leave this up to implementors discretion. We've had IETF consensus that Internet communication requires congestion control at least since RFC2914. A circuit breaker mechanisms seems straightforward to implement.
> 
> As is, I object to this document going forward. The minor benefits of getting some better load balancing for MPLS are far outweighed by the risks.
> 
> (I'm also going to shut up now, and let others speak. I think I've said my bit.)
> 


I'm in basic agreement.

Assuming we might all agree that there are conceivable scenarios where
a circuit breaker mechanism would be useful, is the real issue that
we don't all agree that it could be implemented in a way that's not
burdensome and doesn't degrade performance unnecessarily?

Or is there still fundamental disagreement about whether the scenarios
where the circuit breaker is useful are even valid?

-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems