PW Congestion Considerations
draft-ietf-pwe3-congcons-01
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Yaakov (J) Stein , Bob Briscoe | ||
| Last updated | 2013-04-25 (Latest revision 2012-10-22) | ||
| Replaces | draft-stein-pwe3-congcons | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-pals-congcons, RFC 7893 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Pseudowires (PWs) have become a common mechanism for tunneling traffic, and may be found competing for network resources both with other PWs and with non-PW traffic, such as TCP/IP flows. It is thus worthwhile specifying under what conditions such competition is safe, i.e., the PW traffic does not significantly harm other traffic or contribute more than it should to congestion. We conclude that PWs transporting responsive traffic behave as desired without the need for additional mechanisms. For inelastic PWs (such as TDM PWs) we derive a bound under which such PWs consume no more network capacity than a TCP flow.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)