Re: source-quench I-D
Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Fri, 31 December 2010 07:23 UTC
Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A48583A68E5 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:23:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.47
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v6bX1h-eQkec for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:23:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D8973A68E4 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:23:29 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAN8THU2rR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACkPnOlP5l5hUoEhGWGH4sy
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,254,1291593600"; d="scan'208";a="308939873"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Dec 2010 07:25:35 +0000
Received: from stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com [10.32.244.218]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBV7PYg0023260; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 07:25:35 GMT
Subject: Re: source-quench I-D
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CF4B921.1040600@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:25:34 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3A42ED9C-EEE8-4FAA-B3F2-A6A0EC873A19@cisco.com>
References: <4CE39964.2070803@gont.com.ar> <201011171750.oAHHo1tQ028778@sj-core-5.cisco.com> <4CE43292.4010707@gont.com.ar> <4CE4DCB4.8010409@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <4CF43C3E.9080106@gont.com.ar> <4CF4B921.1040600@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, tsvwg list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 07:23:30 -0000
On Nov 30, 2010, at 12:43 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: > IMHO, the following statement should with hindsight have been written as "SHOULD" rather than "MAY": > "A router MAY ignore any ICMP Source Quench messages it receives." IMHO, any IP system SHOULD ignore a source quench that it receives.
- Re: source-quench I-D Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: source-quench I-D Fred Baker