+1
I don't even care if the safety breaker is a little late, e.g., a few
hundreds of packets (as might be needed for efficient implementation).
Joe
On 1/13/2014 1:42 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
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