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

John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Fri, 09 August 2013 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
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 7F3DD11E8125 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 13:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.786
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.786 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.813, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 xbUIjnfUBe9L for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 13:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (tx2ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86C7511E8135 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 13:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail69-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.247) by TX2EHSOBE010.bigfish.com (10.9.40.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:49:54 +0000
Received: from mail69-tx2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail69-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2F361201F8; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:49:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0510HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -21
X-BigFish: PS-21(zz9371I542I1432Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1de098h1033IL1de097hz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd24hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h9a9j1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail69-tx2: domain of juniper.net designates 157.56.240.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.101; envelope-from=jdrake@juniper.net; helo=BL2PRD0510HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(189002)(199002)(51704005)(13464003)(377454003)(80976001)(65816001)(59766001)(74876001)(16406001)(69226001)(83072001)(54356001)(81686001)(33646001)(53806001)(49866001)(83322001)(74662001)(31966008)(81542001)(4396001)(19580395003)(19580405001)(74316001)(51856001)(50986001)(56776001)(74366001)(56816003)(81342001)(54316002)(66066001)(47446002)(76576001)(80022001)(46102001)(77982001)(47736001)(76796001)(76482001)(77096001)(63696002)(47976001)(79102001)(74502001)(74706001)(76786001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB142; H:BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:66.129.224.54; RD:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Received: from mail69-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail69-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1376081392538549_26303; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:49:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TX2EHSMHS013.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.228]) by mail69-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B5FC3E0035; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:49:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0510HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by TX2EHSMHS013.bigfish.com (10.9.99.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:49:51 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.144) by BL2PRD0510HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.100.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.341.1; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:49:49 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.144) by BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.731.16; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:49:46 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.229]) by BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.57]) with mapi id 15.00.0731.000; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:49:46 +0000
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <mhartley@cisco.com>, "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02
Thread-Index: Ac6UeCOcyiZvNP7VTj6v1XoohGG+nwAmJqLQAAErlUAACmmzwAAAgoeg
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:49:46 +0000
Message-ID: <5ae34c38de934b658c27521d26a9c91b@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.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>
In-Reply-To: <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC105AF2C4@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.224.54]
x-forefront-prvs: 0933E9FD8D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
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 20:57:58 -0000

Yours Irrespectively,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Hartley (mhartley) [mailto:mhartley@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 1:40 PM
> To: John E Drake; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
> Cc: Matt Hartley (mhartley)
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02
> 
> 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. 

JD:  Correct.

> 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?  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
>