Hi Lars, > On Aug 24, 2022, at 04:28, Lars Eggert <l...@eggert.org> wrote: > >> >> This text is talking to implementations not users. It's suggesting >> implementations *also* offer circuit breaker functionality. >> >>> What would make sense is to use circuit breakers in the >>> non-congestion-controlled case, to provide a safety mechanism in cases the >>> network provisioning changes for an active tunnel. >> >> This is in fact the idea. Perhaps we should state this more clearly? > > You are right, I misunderstood this paragraph. It would be useful to clarify > that for CBR mode, CBs are recommended and if so, CC information needs to be > enabled to give the CB information to act on (also see my previous comment > about specifying how CBs work here, i.e., based on AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD CC > information.)
Ok. Included below is the new text adopting your suggestions. * Circuit Breakers In additional to congestion control, implementations that support non-congestion control mode SHOULD implement circuit breakers [[RFC8084]] as a recovery method of last resort. When circuit breakers are enabled an implementation SHOULD also enable congestion control reports so that circuit breakers have information to act on. The pseudowire congestion considerations RFC7893 are equally applicable to the mechanisms defined in this document, notably the text on inellastic traffic. Thanks, Chris. _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
