Re: [mpls] Martin Stiemerling's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: (with DISCUSS)

[Martin Stiemerling <[e-mail]>]

Hi Steward,

Am 21.01.16 um 12:49 schrieb Stewart Bryant:
>
> The following text inserted as a new section between section 4 and 5
> will hopefully address your congestion concerns.
>
> 5. Congestion Considerations
>
> This protocol MUST be run in accordance the guidance provided in
> [RFC5405]. As advised in  section 3.2.1 of RFC5405, operators that wish
> to run this protocol at rates in excess of one packet per three seconds
> need to ensure that the MPLS path being monitored and any IP path that
> may be used to carry the response are provisioned such that there is a
> negligible chance of this protocol causing congestion. Additionally, if
> a significant number of response packets are lost, the querier MUST
> reduce the sending rate to a point where there is a negligible chance
> that this protocol is contributing to network congestion. The operator
> should also take precautions that response packets do not leak out of
> the network domain being used and cause congestion elsewhere. If a
> default IP address is configured by the equipment vendor, this MUST be
> an address known to contain the response packet within the responder,
> such as the IPv4 localhost address [RFC5735] or the IPv6 loopback
> address [RFC4291]. A responder receiving a query specifying this as a
> return  address, and not being configured to expect such a return
> address*, SHOULD notify the operator in a suitably rate limited manner.
>
> Add refs to RFC5405 (normative), RFC 5735 (informational) and RFC 4291
> (informational)
>
>
> *Not part of RFC text - this might occur if the operator wanted a data
> collector co-located on the responder, so it's better to specifically
> allow it than have confusion as to whether it is allowed or not.

Perfectly! I will clear once there is the updated draft.

Thank you,

   Martin