In message <DB6CF60F-FFBA-47DA-9FD6-7288CCB260A6(_at_)netapp(_dot_)com>
"Eggert, Lars" writes:
On 2014-1-14, at 15:20, Stewart Bryant <stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Yes, the inner (real) transport header is the only meaningful place
to apply congestion avoidance.
But what if the inner traffic isn't congestion controlled?
Lars
Lars,
The exact same thing will happen in all of the following cases:
NON-congestion controlled application --over--
UDP --over-- IP --over-- L2
NON-congestion controlled application --over--
UDP --over-- IP --over-- MPLS --over-- L2
NON-congestion controlled application --over--
UDP --over-- IP --over-- MPLS --over-- UDP --over-- IP --over-- L2
The non-congestion controlled application is what needs fixing.
It would be wrong to try to put congestion control at every layer
underneath the non-congestion controlled application except perhaps as
a transparent replacement for UDP and that is out of scope for a
draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp discussion.
Curtis