In message <52D5568F(_dot_)2070600(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com>
"Joel M. Halpern" writes:
Isn't that basically the problem of the inner traffic sender, not the
problem of the tunnel that is carrying the traffic?
Asking tunnel's to solve the problem of applications with undesirable
behavior seems backwards.
Yours,
Joel
Or perhaps the job of some form of very fair AQM like SFQ.
Any tunneling complicates the AQM notion of what a flow is and
therefore may affect its assessment of what is fair in bad ways.
This too is out of scope for a draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp discussion.
Curtis
On 1/14/14 10:20 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
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