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 An: adrian@olddog.co.uk, 'Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)' Kopie (CC): draft-farrel-sfc-convent@ietf.org, tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com, sfc-chairs@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, sfc@ietf.org 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