<wgchair hat="off">
Personally, I thought we reached a different conclusion from
the
discussion in Chicago. I thought that we were going to
specify a
mandatory to implement congestion control mechanism that
could be
turned off when administrators know that the traffic on
their network
will be IP-only and/or when they know that all of the
traffic on
their network is generated by systems that implement some
type of
congestion control.
Margaret
On Aug 28, 2007, at 8:00 PM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote:
> Any objections before I go ahead and change the spec?
Do we want to
> run this by the transport ADs and advisors?
>
> PatC
>
> From: Abhijit Choudhury (achoudhu)
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 4:45 PM
> To: capwap
> Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP and congestion control
>
> Another issue that the transport A-Ds raised was that
> congestion control needs to be considered for CAPWAP.
> The concern was that in case of congestion in the
network,
> packets could get discarded and the sources may not be
> notified or may not realize it. This could lead to
> congestion collapse and fairness issues.
>
> In reality, almost all data traffic being tunneled
over
> CAPWAP is IP. Note that the CAPWAP tunnel is
> between the WTP and AC only. TCP already has its own
congestion
> control mechanism between the source and the sink, and
> I'd argue that creating another congestion control
loop
> in the path would interfere with TCP's congestion
control loop
> and lead to undesirable effects.
>
> I'd suggest we add a Transport Considerations section
> to the CAPWAP spec recommending that non-IP traffic not
be
> sent over the Internet when using CAPWPAP.
> Some proposed text is provided below.
>
> Thoughts/comments ?
>
> Thanks,
> Abhijit
>
> -------------PROPOSED TEXT ---------------
>
> Transport Considerations
>
> The CAPWAP protocol does not provide a congestion
control mechanism.
> The underlying assumption is that data being tunneled
by CAPWAP is
> IP. Since it is essentially a tunneling protocol
between two
> intermediate
> points in the path between the wireless client and the
end host, it
> was felt that having a separate congestion control for
CAPWAP would
> actually interfere with the congestion control
mechanisms already
> in place.
>
> In order to prevent congestion collapse and fairness
issues from
> happening in the Internet, it is recommended that
non-IP traffic
> not be tunneled over CAPWAP.
>
____________________________________________________________
_____
> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options,
please visit:
> htt
p://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
>
> Archives: http://lis
ts.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap
____________________________________________________________
_____
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please
visit:
htt
p://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
Archives: http://lis
ts.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap
|
