Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS in UD

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.
I agree, but I think we need a safety mechanism when such traffic does end up 
on the general Internet (because operators may not read the RFC, or there may 
be configuration errors, etc.)

Even when running inside a provisioned domain, you probably want some sort of 
safety net, like a circuit breaker that detects if your tunnel is 
experiencing/causing severe congestion, and shut it down.

Lars

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail