IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] [BEHAVE] packet reordering in MAP

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Sun, 31 March 2013 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FAC021F85C0; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 07:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id apL-z0-21Hqa; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 07:56:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og124.obsmtp.com (exprod7og124.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADD4221F85B8; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 07:56:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob124.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUVhOjm25H+krVHNyJNdh/GK3eePLC1PR@postini.com; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 07:56:14 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ACE2128279; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 07:56:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B6B819005C; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 07:56:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 07:56:08 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Softwires] [BEHAVE] packet reordering in MAP
Thread-Index: Ac4uB4uRFRGCdwgZTzy7vxCW8THBdQAQLU4AAAGW9IAAAtJCAAAAKgYA
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 14:56:08 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775129FF6@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <7921F977B17D5B49B8DCC955A339D2F02AA9B897@US70UWXCHMBA06.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <51582FD6.9060503@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775129E38@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <51584D70.8010103@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <51584D70.8010103@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <83B2ECE492DBBC4DA793B10F525D7247@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>, "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [BEHAVE] packet reordering in MAP
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 14:56:15 -0000

On Mar 31, 2013, at 10:51 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
 wrote:
> Yes, there is certainly an interesting question about the trade-offs between
> reordering and drops under congestion, but as far as this spec goes, the point
> is that both can happen anyway, so imposing a MUST would be unreasonable.

Indeed so.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email