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

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

On 24/01/2014 15:01, John E Drake wrote:
>
> Ed,
>
> I completely agree with your email, below.  As an aside, the L2 
> packets that Lars is worried about are transported over a pseudo-wire 
> using MPLS, so the logical place to place congestion awareness is in 
> the pseudo-wire endpoints.  I remember that this was in the PWE3's 
> charter some time ago.
>
> Yours Irrespectively,
>
> John
>
The charter says:

Whilst a service provider may traffic engineer their network
in such a way that PW traffic will not cause significant
congestion, a PW deployed by an end-user may cause
congestion of the underlying PSN. Suitable congestion
avoidance mechanisms are therefore needed to protect the
Internet from the unconstrained deployment of PWs. Congestion
avoidance may be more difficult with P2MP pseudowires than
P2P pseudowires. The WG will consider both cases.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stein-pwe3-congcons/
has expired, but if you are interested in working on the subject
I am sure the authors would be delighted to talk to you.

Stewart