On 1/14/2014 11:06 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
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.)
I'm in basic agreement.
Assuming we might all agree that there are conceivable scenarios where
a circuit breaker mechanism would be useful, is the real issue that
we don't all agree that it could be implemented in a way that's not
burdensome and doesn't degrade performance unnecessarily?
Or is there still fundamental disagreement about whether the scenarios
where the circuit breaker is useful are even valid?
--
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems