Re: [Idr] [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt

Melchior Aelmans <> Mon, 02 March 2020 10:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 643AA3A076C for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 02:25:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.887
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vyyDzpxUdfrn for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 02:25:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::435]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C45E3A046A for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 02:25:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y17so11846026wrn.6 for <>; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 02:25:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=y6kJomO02mfXidZMOLfBbfZRdBSWOX5RphihaoiXR9w=; b=xI/+e9wHFSBqbfLDr4vWKNp7X/4qMKOswhimJvtAyHNPv6jaIAW/Ec9t68VVvCG6Yj j2gD+4ZwPcvgkvc2tDqHgDkNpQgmitcnHPLBp53Wqwi2ZtSR0nluzJltstgKmgXZSQ5x ElKBKupmfwTFFywIovb20H1Btth610Yg8lNEsiSAJoVOa5pizx/3W428SlRDB2AhSBk9 9UfVzXu+WW+m2WxMxTUKHNjlMyVdVUVGRIs2YF29c+LAaYrYQFbW9Vt6eoX2Ue5P/AWP FOn5aQwb0VraB1kX77N2M1pnO90Mw2z25+JgXAgnzj08Dn9qUwx+8FOgv/VFNe81nOem POdQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=y6kJomO02mfXidZMOLfBbfZRdBSWOX5RphihaoiXR9w=; b=uczKKvi2NJ1flLFqeM2N6sVtjARHdi4M4uA991Is7ukTOQsB5FF3dD/KMhCoDGXL5O UVhmkfVIobc+TBEvI0PAgzJ/qVenSoDbO66AXLEwUi1pfeVcNg8CAxlGzcjlNQrY6t6d XSdk9Ns3Ti9dsT958yMpR2Kx6vKmZF21uLfWRGLA9VD1OBVF/NNpqBJPVUBiJYI16Li8 JiyuXasklTn3CKS2N1ourwZ1oRN2b7bESBC2nRXcB8w7sn/QKNoGuoEjLY0nBE/FHSDm 1G0XrSC+9mpXyUtJ+V/AFHWORUOBe51mj+dPRezN5GJ/+tFctowihpSuSHk6ypLM0tti y+Kw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1jtKgRpe+YpAKPSzDK6FfChfz1bMV6coyQcW/PkRT06jgfAJ78 alWFQI7VUBkNu1GZte+zEZ3xdy10UWikusgFidP17Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vuqB5U04lK/zfj9VOsTein6k0eOtNcVITw+ZkdKYpz4ZKlF8u9gObhjIyA+4A42i/0KPC07bOolHKaP3h2OIt4=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:e9c9:: with SMTP id l9mr6832521wrn.356.1583144725632; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 02:25:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Melchior Aelmans <>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 11:25:15 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: Ondrej Zajicek <>
Cc: "徐小虎(义先)" <>, idr <>, SPRING WG List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ffeb59059fdc9a0b"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 10:25:40 -0000


I think this work is very interesting and could serve a very broad use case
as mentioned by others in this thread as well.

For example I would like to see, and offer to help out write those, the
working of NETWORK_LATENCY in combination with ADD-PATH.
This particular example would offer a downstream network to select best
paths based on the NETWORK_LATENCY property inside a given network.
Would the authors be interested in exploring this?

I do also agree that this maybe should not be a seperate SAFI. I'm
interested in discussing further.


On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:37 AM Ondrej Zajicek <>

> Hi
> My main objection to the draft is it uses separate SAFI to signal that
> latency based routing is used. I don't think that is a good idea. Latency
> based routing is a general concept, which makes sense to use with several
> existing SAFIs (at least 1, 4 and 128). Whether or not announce and
> use NETWORK_LATENCY TLV should be an independent session property, like
> using AIGP TLV or e.g. ADD-PATH extension.
> This is an issue that was underspecified in RFC 7311, just kept by
> configuration of both sides. Perhaps we need a new capability to specify
> which AIGP TLVs (if any) are supposed to be used on the session, so it
> can be negotiated automatically like ADD-PATH.
> --
> Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email:
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list