Re: [Lsr] IGP TE Metric Extensions

Sounds reasonable to me..

Adding a clarification note in the draft would be useful, IMHO.

Regards,
Muthu

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Hi Muthu,
>
>
>
> The Sections 5, 6 and 7 of these drafts are critical as it impacts the IGP
> protocol operation and stability though it is not an integral part of the
> IGP protocol machinery. This functionality in a system, whether achieved in
> the IGP/measurement/some-other module, is an implementation specific aspect.
>
>
>
> To answer your question, these aspects may be implemented outside the core
> IGP module and the IGPs simply flood these while satisfying the aspects
> specified in the document.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
> *From:* Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
> *Sent:* 05 June 2018 16:42
> *To:* Stefano Previdi (IETF) <s@previdi.net>
> *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] IGP TE Metric Extensions
>
>
>
>
>
> Please see inline..
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:34 AM, Stefano Previdi (IETF) <s@previdi.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018, 6:15 PM Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <
> muthu.arul@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Jeff. Would be good to have this clarified in
>
> 
>
> draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis. My original message seems to have been
> stripped off, so including it again for the lsr list..
>
>
>
> Both RFC 7810 and RFC 7471 say that:
>
>
>
>    The measurement interval, any filter coefficients, and any
>
>    advertisement intervals MUST be configurable per sub-TLV.
>
>
>
>    Additionally, the default measurement interval for all sub-TLVs
>
>    SHOULD be 30 seconds.
>
>
>
> However, both RFCs initially say that they only describe mechanisms for
> disseminating performance information and methods of measurements is
> outside their scope.
>
>
>
> Moreover, for a first time reader, it seems to suggest that the
> measurement interval and filter coefficient must be supported and
> configurable under the IGP.
>
>
>
>
>
> No. This is not suggested in any form.
>
> It is clearly indicated that the draft does not deal with measurements
> which means no recommendation is made.
>
>
>
>
>
> In a system supporting multiple IGPs, I would expect that they be
> implemented outside the IGP and the IGPs just disseminate the information
> provided to them.
>
>
>
> Thoughts, especially from an implementation standpoint?
>
>
>
>
>
> Again, the draft is only about dissemination, not measurements..
>
>
>
> How is the measurement interval and filter coefficients described in the
> draft related to dissemination?
>
>
>
>    The measurement interval, any filter coefficients, and any
>
>    advertisement intervals MUST be configurable per sub-TLV.
>
>
>
>    Additionally, the default measurement interval for all sub-TLVs
>
>    SHOULD be 30 seconds.
>
>
>
> If your question is related to configuration and implementation of
> measurements, well it will not be addressed by this draft.
>
>
>
> We intentionally left out this part that does not belong to the igp
> protocol machinery.
>
>
>
> Which of the functionalities described in sections 5, 6, 7 of the draft
> belong to the IGP protocol machinery?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Muthu
>
>
>
>
>
> s.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards.
>
> Muthu
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Muthu,
>
> LSR would be a more suitable list to post to, CCed.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff
>
> > On May 30, 2018, at 18:06, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <
> muthu.arul@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Muthu
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
>
>