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

Martin Stiemerling <> Sun, 31 January 2016 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A61671B2D96; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:37:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0wNC7iKY6kFl; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:37:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8ACE1B2D94; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:37:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 128so46245058wmz.1; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:37:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oDoEWs2dg3FUc1VAcuX/o2ZBDpNyKiyA3G81Um1rva8=; b=fIALzQ0mu9j3pl32W3SodRKN8XJelmIqT+JD3lnG3bcFaczbUFlliw9yT1jk+4If4/ FugDSI43cpvTID+VqAWwDb6YhHHYr+OJNLe4KTmDYk6lLtT7Rdox/C2vqP/4jHbuToKb 5Yj6jGEy9q56a15g+tELeKKjd/rJ/7pydlDowstaAur4ZnbYpH9zA9bGM24XC+HJu+3I 2/BrBQyBNrIGtNod8rTkCIdlzrzKhaeNmm06pCvYZY36rhka7ijrGbEH6wYbZGEn6tOi 0a9uPyJs1d8aAqSvEUbaIPuvQqRW1ju9NOYP/Ab7NULApfcp08q6C0oluBOkVRM+4kdi EOjw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=oDoEWs2dg3FUc1VAcuX/o2ZBDpNyKiyA3G81Um1rva8=; b=IvbZyJV07CfIgURWwWtw8oUN0d7tPouSPkApCxgVnoXI43TrhY0K4K7gdTumzvx8nC gB1pCPS2TCTSMO3S9cwQq/sFxZEaqsuBosYazEjV8uSvGZHYa7O/2FlFrPh7WDDxjAdZ fVDvVVXhW/L6aBJOh5ZC0oFJHnJNLscLGqM88f/pcJm6LVrjQ2e6lM2qSjQYCL4+Ecot VZMSrm4nJf9GnDgam3CJsHyKK928VjhDgKjKF3lmgC+/QO943+CO+UAqQQZoSikXj1+n oReHTIGRL2tbOPkilX4R9kBHEoeV7G3E1Zh13TCiP2vI3ov1XGydSudND+Q4MgDiD+92 2iPA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQboZdGjGhC4e9YnHVtg/+Tb1CDojixJJ/8MTovXFeqsuW/spAobpAgvsJGSL0MXg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id ub9mr19078113wjc.9.1454276262371; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:37:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([2001:1a80:280c:a800:8d42:9464:bf21:603e]) by with ESMTPSA id ha9sm25972090wjc.3.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:37:41 -0800 (PST)
To: Stewart Bryant <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Martin Stiemerling <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 22:37:32 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc:,, The IESG <>,
Subject: Re: [mpls] Martin Stiemerling's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: (with DISCUSS)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:37:45 -0000

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,