ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2014-01-13 03:37:51
Hi,

On 2014-1-13, at 10:16, Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com> wrote:
No conflict at all. What I meant is: for those clients of MPLS which are not 
TCP-friendly (case 2&3 as described in Section 3.1.3 of RFC5405), they should 
never be transported over the unprovisioned path (e.g., the Internet). 
Insteads, they should only be transported over a provisioned path in a 
restricted networking environment. As a result, there is no need for the 
congestion control mechanism for them.

ah, sorry! I misread "The above choice seems no conflict" in your sentence as 
"The above choice seems TO conflict". Oops.

Lars

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>