RFC 7893: Pseudowire Congestion Considerations
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Pseudowires (PWs) have become a common mechanism for tunneling traffic and may be found in unmanaged scenarios competing for network resources both with other PWs and with non-PW traffic, such as TCP/IP flows. Thus, it is worthwhile specifying under what conditions such competition is acceptable, i.e., the PW traffic does not significantly harm other traffic or contribute more than it should to congestion. We conclude that PWs transporting responsive traffic behave as desired without the need for additional mechanisms. For inelastic PWs (such as Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) PWs), we derive a bound under which such PWs consume no more network capacity than a TCP flow. For TDM PWs, we find that the level of congestion at which the PW can no longer deliver acceptable TDM service is never significantly greater, and is typically much lower, than this bound. Therefore, as long as the PW is shut down when it can no longer deliver acceptable TDM service, it will never do significantly more harm than even a single TCP flow. If the TDM service does not automatically shut down, a mechanism to block persistently unacceptable TDM pseudowires is required.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC7893
- Published
- June 2016
- Authors
- Y(J) Stein; D. Black; B. Briscoe
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 27
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 8104Pseudowire (PW) Endpoint Fast Failure ProtectionCurrent
March 2017
- RFC 8159Keyed IPv6 TunnelCurrent
May 2017
- RFC 7392Explicit Path Routing for Dynamic Multi-Segment PseudowiresCurrent
December 2014
- RFC 8469Recommendation to Use the Ethernet Control WordCurrent
November 2018
- RFC 7026Retiring TLVs from the Associated Channel Header of the MPLS Generic Associated ChannelCurrent
September 2013
- RFC 6310Pseudowire (PW) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Message MappingCurrent
July 2011
- RFC 9600TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) SupportCurrent
August 2024
- RFC 9681IS-IS Fast FloodingCurrent
November 2024
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?