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

"Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <mhartley@cisco.com> Fri, 09 August 2013 20:47 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 39B1B21F9E31 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 13:47:26 -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 iRzjS1ylH2Ux for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 13:47:20 -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 69C7111E80EA for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 13:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=723; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1376080824; x=1377290424; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Ky0zGF2lZoHYXD+1JGkg+feED4DhOA0AksZIB4uXz3M=; b=hzVYMxMlr8kZPYIEf4NMNOezxBkIGcrgN0PEBI3VI9CETOMQcLf8mhaA yB/nLp+4HuTRdOlakXyk+yZtov7tyG6ekul4yFi4ljZ6tfc4M+hBwyYC6 bTIyIEbXudkpgIuwFAZEhId12+7a99q5Qy1ASROkppfLqWs0ym8k8/aWe g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFAERSBVKtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABbgwaBBb5XgRwWdIIkAQEBAwE6PwULAgEIIhQQMiUBAQQBDQ2IAga4ZI58gQUxB4MadQOpMYMbgXE5
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,848,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="245639733"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Aug 2013 20:40:23 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r79KeMBq022738 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:40:22 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 15:40:22 -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+nwAmJqLQAAErlUAACmmzwA==
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:40:22 +0000
Message-ID: <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC105AF2C4@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com>
References: <fef00ba6c7f24978ad08fb60ee929a79@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC105AD55C@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> <925f76c29b1a44d896e38962c33085f0@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <925f76c29b1a44d896e38962c33085f0@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 20:47:26 -0000

John,

I think most of your mail was covered by my reply to Igor's, but one thing that wasn't:

> JD:  I didn't say anything about latency, however, since you mention it, I
> think it would be far better for the clients to measure latency.

If you want a truly accurate measure of what the latency is right now, then yes. 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).

Cheers

Matt