Re: [Dime] [dime] #45: Why is a validity duration of 0 disallowed?

Hi

I am OK with the 3 first Lionel's statements.

Regarding the 4th one (non-zero reduction, 0 validity period => Invalid), I think that, as Ben proposed,  the zero validity  period prevails whatever the value of traffic reduction %.

Best regards

JJacques

De : DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Steve Donovan
Envoyé : lundi 17 février 2014 17:19
À : dime@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Dime] [dime] #45: Why is a validity duration of 0 disallowed?

+1
On 2/14/14 3:51 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:

On Feb 14, 2014, at 9:53 AM, lionel.morand@orange.com<mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com> wrote:

In other words, I think that we should have the following cases:

-  non-zero reduction, non-zero validity period => Valid

-  0 reduction, non-zero validity period => Valid (not blocking)

-  0 reduction, 0 validity period => Valid

-  non-zero reduction, 0 validity period => Invalid

Does it make sense?

I don't think so.

The idea is that setting Validity-Period to zero ends an overload condition, without regard to the algorithm. Reduction-Percentage is specific to the default algorithm. I don't think we need to create an algorithm-specific rule here, at least not normatively. So I would say that a Validity-Period of zero ends overload, without regard to the algorithm, or any algorithm specific values.

I recognize that interacts with my previous comment about ignoring OLRs that have invalid Reduction-Percentage values, in that you could have silly things like [reduction-percentage=14732, validity-period=0]. In that case, I think the validity period would take precedent over the invalid reduction-percentage.

_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

DiME@ietf.org<mailto:DiME@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime