{"draft":"draft-ietf-pals-congcons-02","doc_id":"RFC7893","title":"Pseudowire Congestion Considerations","authors":["Y(J) Stein","D. Black","B. Briscoe"],"format":["ASCII","PDF","HTML"],"page_count":"27","pub_status":"INFORMATIONAL","status":"INFORMATIONAL","source":"Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services","abstract":"Pseudowires (PWs) have become a common mechanism for tunneling\r\ntraffic and may be found in unmanaged scenarios competing for network\r\nresources both with other PWs and with non-PW traffic, such as TCP\/IP\r\nflows.  Thus, it is worthwhile specifying under what conditions such\r\ncompetition is acceptable, i.e., the PW traffic does not\r\nsignificantly harm other traffic or contribute more than it should to\r\ncongestion.  We conclude that PWs transporting responsive traffic\r\nbehave as desired without the need for additional mechanisms.  For\r\ninelastic PWs (such as Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) PWs), we\r\nderive a bound under which such PWs consume no more network capacity\r\nthan a TCP flow.  For TDM PWs, we find that the level of congestion\r\nat which the PW can no longer deliver acceptable TDM service is never\r\nsignificantly greater, and is typically much lower, than this bound.\r\nTherefore, as long as the PW is shut down when it can no longer\r\ndeliver acceptable TDM service, it will never do significantly more\r\nharm than even a single TCP flow.  If the TDM service does not\r\nautomatically shut down, a mechanism to block persistently\r\nunacceptable TDM pseudowires is required.","pub_date":"June 2016","keywords":["pseudowire","congestion","TCP friendliness"],"obsoletes":[],"obsoleted_by":[],"updates":[],"updated_by":[],"see_also":[],"doi":"10.17487\/RFC7893","errata_url":null}