Re: [CCAMP] Comments to draft-wang-ccamp-latency-te-metric-01

fu.xihua@zte.com.cn Mon, 08 November 2010 08:01 UTC

Return-Path: <fu.xihua@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: ccamp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78BBB3A6810 for <ccamp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 00:01:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -95.035
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KHjBMbRSSu6t for <ccamp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 00:01:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302AD3A67DB for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 00:01:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 20595473195744; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 15:58:21 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.32.0.74] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 55813.1123041560; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:01:39 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse3.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id oA87qSiQ005469; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 15:52:36 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from fu.xihua@zte.com.cn)
To: Frederick Robinson <frederick.bedford@gmail.com>, ccamp@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005
Message-ID: <OFCAF3A222.1C7175EF-ON482577D5.002B29EF-482577D5.002B3F1A@zte.com.cn>
From: fu.xihua@zte.com.cn
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 15:52:21 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2010-11-08 15:52:23, Serialize complete at 2010-11-08 15:52:23
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 002B3F14482577D5_="
X-MAIL: mse3.zte.com.cn oA87qSiQ005469
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Comments to draft-wang-ccamp-latency-te-metric-01
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 08:01:24 -0000

Hi Frederick,

Pls see inline.

Xihua Fu




Frederick Robinson <frederick.bedford@gmail.com> 
2010-11-06 下午 10:04

收件人
wang.qilei@zte.com.cn, fu.xihua@zte.com.cn, ccamp@ietf.org
抄送

主题
Comments to draft-wang-ccamp-latency-te-metric-01






Dear Authors,

I agree with the requirement of communicating latency as a TE performance 
metric especially in OTN. I have some questions to the latency.
How to measure the latency of a single link? Perhaps you need to clarify 
it.
[Xihua] How to measrue the latency is out scope of this document. In OTN 
we may use the test signal or LMP protocol to measure the latency of link. 
In MPLS-TP we may use OAM packet to measure it. 
Do you really want to consider the latency of nodes for the path 
computation? It is very diffcult to measure it.
[Xihua] Yes, it do. We can configure the latency of node into control 
plane. Data plane may provide a mechnisom
I don't think you need to trigger the restoration/re-route because total 
latency of LSP has been affected by the linke latency. 
[Xihua] There is latnecy agreement between operator and its user (especial 
private line user). If the provisioned latency of pivate line could not 
meet the latency SLA again, operator should switchover the traffic to 
another LSP which meet the latency SLA. 

Regards,
Frederick