Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02
"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Fri, 09 August 2013 21:27 UTC
Return-Path: <zali@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 B0ECE21F9D28 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 14:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.503, 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 jR5Bux-+heE5 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 14:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC1F811E81E3 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 14:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6094; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1376083103; x=1377292703; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=61RmkJhrnqOItTu+u3pxgb0oaN+kgWsO3MeME4bWqtw=; b=GCgtUSPo9pmF0lUudRHlRr8aAXCARf3+cbpvhCcKtXwLtrUYlS8wADl2 gtsjYudhMvXXSCp++0mSS0s9g8G2fbeeUiYbzrbcSWDi1cfGexyUkGXCp lEzrGrUiWHdVzMCSs95iU3fHF89jkfUvg/7K+mezYnoAPdsK2smyW6da1 s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFAN9bBVKtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABbgwY1UL5ZgRwWdIIkAQEBBAEBAWsXBgEIDgMDAQEBCx0uCxQJCAIEARIIiAgMuF0EkAEGMgIEgxR1A6kxgxuCKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,848,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="245648817"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Aug 2013 21:18:22 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r79LIMv3021891 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 9 Aug 2013 21:18:22 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.213]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 16:18:21 -0500
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net>, "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <mhartley@cisco.com>, Igor Bryskin <IBryskin@advaoptical.com>, John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02
Thread-Index: AQHOlUOvyiZvNP7VTj6v1XoohGG+n5mNcikA
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 21:18:20 +0000
Message-ID: <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30EA023B8@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <87c8d290bc824645a5afd0082ece8663@BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.82.219.206]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <C488924C12832049B78A8F156F610719@emea.cisco.com>
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 21:28:16 -0000
Hi Gert- Let's not confuse/ mix inquiry with recording. The question raised here is related to "Cost recording" - for which author can take an AI and come back. Thanks Regards Š Zafar -----Original Message----- From: Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net> Date: Friday, August 9, 2013 5:01 PM To: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <mhartley@cisco.com>, "IBryskin@advaoptical.com" <IBryskin@advaoptical.com>, "jdrake@juniper.net" <jdrake@juniper.net>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02 >Matt, > >Let's not forget that the thread started with the question if poking with >RSVP to understand server layer TE attributes is wise to do. >Now the discussion becomes whether TE information is necessary at all. >That doesn't reflect the concerns. > >Rather than jumping on a protocol to add a few hacks, it would be better >to define the problem space and analyze the options. > >-Gert > > > >________________________________________ >From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Matt >Hartley (mhartley) <mhartley@cisco.com> >Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 10:30:59 PM >To: Igor Bryskin; John E Drake; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) >Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02 > >Igor, John, > >It seems that we have a simple disagreement here about whether >discovering the cost of a LSP over a server layer is any use at all. I >don't agree that it's as completely useless as you assert. > >While it would certainly be very hard to make much of it in the complete >absence of other communication between the operators of the client and >server networks, I don't think that's how things work most of the time. >While the silicon beasts that run the network may not be able to >negotiate the meaning of "cost", the carbon-based ones that are supposed >to be in charge of it all are fully capable of doing so. At the very >least there has to be an agreement to allow the LSP in the first place, >and there's no reason why that agreement can't cover other things, such >as what costs are going to mean or how they should be interpreted. > >Granted, there will be times when this absolutely isn't the case, but I >don't think the operators of client and server networks are always >completely at arm's length. I think this is what Zafar meant when he said >it was a policy matter. > >It seems to me that the uselessness (or usefulness) of discovering the >cost of a LSP over a server network is a decision best made by the >network operators, rather than a decision that should be forced onto the >network operator by us. I'm therefore in favour of leaving it in place so >that it may be used by those who wish to. > >Cheers > >Matt > >> Matt, >> >> John's point is that the costs of a TE link in a client layer are not >> "something vague" or something absolute as you imply, rather, >>something that >> can relate said TE link to other client layer TE links, and such costs >>have >> nothing to do with the costs of the server LSPs supporting them. >>Consider the >> following: >> a) static client layer TE link 0; >> b) client layer TE link 1 supported by a server layer LSP1 in server >>domain >> 1; >> c) client layer TE link 2 supported by a server layer LSP2 in server >>domain >> 2 >> >> The point is that the costs collected for, say, LSP1 do not help in >>any way >> to define the costs of TE Link1 as compared to costs of TE link 0 or TE >> link2; >> >> Cheers, >> Igor >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >>Of >> Matt Hartley (mhartley) >> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 11:07 AM >> To: John E Drake; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02 >> >> John, >> >> The point you raise is a good one, but I don't think it has much to do >>with >> this draft. >> >> > I think there is a basic issue with this draft, which is that the >> > server network manages its own TE metrics and those metrics almost >> > certainly have nothing in common with the TE metrics used in a given >>client >> network. >> >> So if I understand you correctly, you're just saying that "cost" is a >> somewhat vague thing that may mean different things to different network >> operators? This is true sometimes, but that doesn't mean it will always >>be >> the case. And I think concepts such as latency and latency variation >>are less >> prone to this problem; when we talk about "latency", I'm reasonably >>sure we >> all mean the same thing. >> >> > Given this, would it not be better to have policy in the client nodes >> > that maps the characteristics of a given LSP established across the >> > server network into the TE metric to be advertised with that LSP in >>the >> client network? >> >> Certainly that might be a good idea... but it's beyond the scope of this >> draft. If you want to map the characteristics of a given LSP established >> across the server network into the TE metric to be advertised with that >>LSP >> in the client network, you first have to know what the characteristics >>of the >> LSP across the server network are... and that's what this draft is for; >>it's >> simply about the discovery of the information, not what you choose to >>do with >> it afterwards. >> >> Cheers >> >> Matt >> >> > >> > Yours Irrespectively, >> > >> > John >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > CCAMP mailing list >> > CCAMP@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp >> _______________________________________________ >> CCAMP mailing list >> CCAMP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp >_______________________________________________ >CCAMP mailing list >CCAMP@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > > > >_______________________________________________ >CCAMP mailing list >CCAMP@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… Matt Hartley (mhartley)
- [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02 John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… Matt Hartley (mhartley)
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… Matt Hartley (mhartley)
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… Matt Hartley (mhartley)
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-… John E Drake