Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPL

Hi,

On 2014-1-14, at 16:39, Scott Brim <scott(_dot_)brim(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 
wrote:
> Lars, I know we're repeating arguments from the last decade. The
> choice is between (1) specifying congestion control around the
> substrate UDP that can be turned off if it causes problems, or (2)
> specifying nothing at this time and adding it later if operators want
> it.
>
> I guess if this can be written as a SHOULD, up to the implementor's
> discretion, then okay.
I don't think we can leave this up to implementors discretion. We've had IETF 
consensus that Internet communication requires congestion control at least 
since RFC2914. A circuit breaker mechanisms seems straightforward to implement.

As is, I object to this document going forward. The minor benefits of getting 
some better load balancing for MPLS are far outweighed by the risks.

(I'm also going to shut up now, and let others speak. I think I've said my bit.)

Lars

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail