Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02

"Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <mhartley@cisco.com> Fri, 09 August 2013 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mhartley@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1FC911E811F for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 14:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JnYQPZKyeYP6 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 14:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5130611E8128 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 13:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1276; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1376081890; x=1377291490; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=kzopni+DdZ6jEE5b7THP98+Loxk0jxk0i4yXSyvnkrM=; b=JjH5N/TKc9dy/9JB3vEQ6HjAYfo39lGYZ9zaxsRIUmC3mxAVxrllOE5A Oq+7dD5gKfxNAdVANlQCgdQZYTqUtDsE4ynIHKlKdr9HvSttQniwV0aFY Z2Owls1pwVS2IJChGHvuOarMtSEBMkX3v3NdvpzFPSmx83sBU4JFZmmQB Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFADFXBVKtJXG//2dsb2JhbABbgwaBBb5XgRwWdIIkAQEBAwE6PwULAgEIIhQQMiUBAQQBDQ2IAga4aZABMQeDGnUDqTGDG4Iq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,848,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="245624143"
Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Aug 2013 20:58:10 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r79Kw9bp021585 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:58:09 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.7.202]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 15:58:09 -0500
From: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <mhartley@cisco.com>
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02
Thread-Index: Ac6UeCOcyiZvNP7VTj6v1XoohGG+nwAmJqLQAAErlUAACmmzwAAAgoegAABbZYA=
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:58:08 +0000
Message-ID: <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC105AF366@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com>
References: <fef00ba6c7f24978ad08fb60ee929a79@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC105AD55C@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> <925f76c29b1a44d896e38962c33085f0@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC105AF2C4@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> <5ae34c38de934b658c27521d26a9c91b@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <5ae34c38de934b658c27521d26a9c91b@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.251]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 21:04:57 -0000

John,

> > However, discovering the latency of the LSP you currently have
> > (according to the server network) becomes much more useful once you
> > also have other tools at your disposal. In particular, you can use the
> > discovered latency to impose latency constraints on another LSP you
> > may signal (as described in draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-
> bound-03).
> 
> JD:  You use the measured latency of one LSP to specify the desired latency
> for a subsequent LSP?  

No. You'd use the collected latency on one LSP to specify the desired latency on a subsequent one (or to give you a good idea of what specified latency it might be reasonable to require).

I'm being somewhat pessimistic here and assuming that there may be discrepancies between the collected and measured latencies on the original LSP. Obviously we'd like to think there wouldn't be, but... :)

Cheers

Matt

> If that is what you are saying then you have just
> agreed with my original point which was having the server network provide a
> culmulative estimate of an LSP's latency in the server network is not nearly
> as useful as having the client measure the latency of its LSP.
> 
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Matt
> >
>