Hi Lars,
Thanks a lot for your comments.
I wonder whether the following modified text for Congestion Consideration
section is OK from your point of view:
Since the MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation causes MPLS packets to be forwarded through
"UDP tunnels", the congestion control guidelines for UDP tunnels as defined in
Section 3.1.3 of [RFC5405] SHOULD be followed. Specifically, MPLS can carry a
number of different protocols as payloads. When the payload traffic is IP-based
and congestion-controlled, the UDP tunnel SHOULD NOT employ its own congestion
control mechanism, because congestion losses of tunneled traffic will already
trigger an appropriate congestion response at the original senders of the
tunneled traffic. When the payload traffic is not known to be IP-based, or is
known to be IP-based but not congestion-controlled, the UDP tunnel SHOULD
employ an appropriate congestion control mechanism. Furthermore, because UDP
tunnels are usually bulk-transfer applications as far as the intermediate
routers are concerned, the guidelines as defined in Section 3.1.1 of [RFC5405]
SHOULD apply.
Best regards,
Xiaohu
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] 代表 Eggert, Lars
发送时间: 2014年1月8日 18:22
收件人: IETF
抄送: mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
主题: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS
in UDP) to Proposed Standard
Hi,
On 2014-1-2, at 16:14, The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
- 'Encapsulating MPLS in UDP'
<draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> as Proposed Standard
this document needs to describe how it addresses the issues raised in BCP145
(RFC5405). It already contains some text about messages sizes and congestion
considerations, which is great. Unfortunately, the text about congestion
considerations is not fully in line with RFC5405.
Lars