Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-delay-var-as.

Hi Al, 

[snipped larger parts]

[Al wrote]
For example, some of your observations on re-routes may not hold for
the IPDV defined in the memo - lost packets and undefined pairs
are a key factor when trying to detect path changes with
"consecutive source packet" IPDV, as we explained.

[Ruediger]
Yes, respecting loss is one way to detect a reroute. The approach 
working with IPDV data only is described in 
draft-ietf-ippm-delay-var-as for the loss less path change (6.2.1). 
As soon as the IPDV measurement ignores losses, the method 
described there can always be applied.
I don't think that an IPDV selection funtion based on pairs of
packets in the sequence as they arrive is hard to implement. I 
further think, that this selection function has a couple of 
advantages over one respecting sequence numbers (and with that 
of course losses).

[Ruediger]
My impression is, if the aim is to learn the required dimensions of
de-jitter buffers a priori, PDV is the better choice. A network 
operator interested in learning more about the status of his 
network, may additionally use IPDV (with suitable selection and 
reporting functions).

[Ruediger]
Yes, maybe I felt the selection function your draft describes to be 
as strange as the you feel the one I describe to be...

Regards

Ruediger
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm