Subject: [Tsv-art] Fwd: Re: [sfc] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-farrel-sfc-convent-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 23:04:14 +0100

did forget to include tsv-art.

-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [sfc] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on 
draft-farrel-sfc-convent-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Datum: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 23:03:06 +0100
Von: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
An: [email-masked], 'Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)' <[email-masked]>
Kopie (CC): [email-masked], 
[email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]

Hi Adrian,

Jumping in here, as the TSVART reviewer:

The document is good modulo what Mirja mentioned about congestion control:

Am 02.02.18 um 19:25 schrieb Adrian Farrel:
[...]
> 
> Consider, if you will, BFD. There *is* rate limiting in BFD, but the rate may be
> pretty fast.
> 
> Anyway, if we construct some text that advises implementations:
> - why to rate limit
> - how to rate limit
> - what rates may be appropriate
> would you review it for us?

and it is probably explicitly noteworthy that one incoming packet can 
trigger one (or even multiple ?) new packet which may increase the 
number of packets related to the incoming flow by a factor of 2.

BFD (RFC 5880) might be a good start (but only...) when it comes to text 
about congestion control, i.e., to make the implementers and operators 
aware of the issue.

However, as you've written the reasons about why, how and what is much 
better.

I can do the review and help with the text.

Cheers from Southern Europe ;)

   Martin