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

["Zafar Ali (zali)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi John:

Please see in-line.

Thanks

Regards Š Zafar


-----Original Message-----
From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, August 9, 2013 11:41 AM
To: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02

>
>
>Yours Irrespectively,
>
>John
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matt Hartley (mhartley) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 8:07 AM
>> To: John E Drake; CCAMP ([e-mail])
>> Cc: Matt Hartley (mhartley)
>> Subject: RE: 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.
>
>JD:  This draft is proposing that the cumulative TE metric associated
>with the establishment of an LSP in the server network be passed to the
>client LSP endpoints.  My point is that this is probably useless at best.

This is all controlled by policy at the client layer and depends on the
use cases of independent vs. dependent costs.

> 
>> 
>> > 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.
>
>JD:  You have no way of knowing whether there is any congruence between
>the TE metrics in the server network and the TE metrics in a client
>network.

This is all controlled by policy at the client layer.
><snip>