Re: [Lsr] New draft on Flex-Algorithm Bandwidth Constraints

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 03 March 2021 10:10 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 326073A0B70 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 02:10:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8MeWgAfqF0j2 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 02:10:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com (mail-lf1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE7F53A0B72 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 02:10:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id d3so36163197lfg.10 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 02:10:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ghE9WvC5GEGBjPCmFC3XnCEzuxenWyeBsnKLsYreI+U=; b=RfeCwSp/5UtWrtZzXlF6teMR6FeD/AzGbTBNbWJPT0ftMmqNxNHcHvwhwtSW3vbtdT qYPcXewSE23+dGVAUafNxQBdtzqQ4p+u0k0JlG4iAof92uepuvY0HhPAXcrGkpR0+Rw5 ecjDA6xkoGhcOL/7VWQyWkZjamYifBF2VsNKTQH+nfmOt+v0Rqvki7YmD3SiPHpzbQMe s5d8rJf8PEH3LHogqXkMGvxMGyROQoUimlvsjRXm397ZrlxaMYLnK+LjpoUYGRcGm40t yGnhXaTM1Hl9hw+gDBMSVncq7rke+BgciD5P6t6WHPh/f4TMMvkSD/KQT7b5Oy95Ih2l IHGA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ghE9WvC5GEGBjPCmFC3XnCEzuxenWyeBsnKLsYreI+U=; b=e8LLsPSK8m2gEIbYlCZn908nkwJsMux+2nAVFk3LuC7WyTJjXtxz7dH0vnPXQwA1K/ o4TCScGeRPEpl8Ze63Eh48JY48z844SyMCe7mfhDW0nkYA8VW5bBcYb1gRu9Ry5iC8sD GznK1+SRlFn39oeNRRttuEOPiDPAIlp5zXLevdDoEu1+QmKLXQ0+XLVxtDlcuDaxo/2R bfNeNr2taN1GaAMxvdTLwyB2rprE2xGEFWlofmMRxdWFrAJgx2yJukhE4A5v1r+8K0VJ DIRtG9EbJNbrNdtXmiJ9rjLwrp8Jz71/3RHsb3wv/p5zv67xx6lFyLS9rj+ipixcBzxu UZNw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532MxQ8+8D3SPNSE9Tpz7fTyZ3o+qVnPCEMUai7Wj/utWtHpmPvU SZts1XBvyTB+g3r6FzUYDfNcSw/uKN7HvoBsyNT1SA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzrU8BIE1+sh0U/h9AR271UINBLwofqlU6kVCdBpX9YMFU3TIpEHvTbk4s/qzf7Il1lweRhqQfg3wmdfEKPMt0=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:ac49:: with SMTP id r9mr15807423lfc.602.1614766221737; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 02:10:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161401476623.19237.3808413288895066510@ietfa.amsl.com> <DM5PR0501MB380079CFD75C78610130D81BCD9D9@DM5PR0501MB3800.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMHKazMG3wnUA+Kd2wg2hfr01CdF5w5YYKdFaHU4_V+0SA@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV0UKB=HaMs9eLvvp4fVLPsEtJhQ2xFmwY80sqBNDFRudQ@mail.gmail.com> <DM5PR0501MB38006C4B638AD2AB6A7731B5CD9A9@DM5PR0501MB3800.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <7C67D01F-24DB-4450-8587-E004CAFBBEBC@tony.li> <CAOj+MMGZppwYtNr4t0rJoy3BKWaBYqHiJ_esM1XNFTNxbm8c5w@mail.gmail.com> <08882555-009B-4068-ABB0-20B0D165D722@tony.li> <2c2605a8-95c6-a477-b1b5-5ae4d4de222a@cisco.com> <CAOj+MMGf=zQMGP+q+XX-MJi-qMrOddmq_+wmrXFS+JQX_PsudQ@mail.gmail.com> <25a8853a-72a3-3013-6a87-d8049ed7a3da@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <25a8853a-72a3-3013-6a87-d8049ed7a3da@cisco.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 11:10:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMH2a=T-vBsD6QVChmybmdQhQXFcDg1np+v+bpKOWPbtKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Cc: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, "DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN" <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, Rajesh M <mrajesh@juniper.net>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, William Britto A J <bwilliam=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000ad11705bc9f0ffb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/F0wu8_pVh33PuattlGDZ28hreu0>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New draft on Flex-Algorithm Bandwidth Constraints
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 10:10:28 -0000

Hey Peter,



> > Authors stated: "Whether egress queueing delay is included in the link
> > delay depends on the measuring mechanism."
>
> I disagree with that statement - the Min Unidirectional Link Delay is
> the value that does not include the queueing delay - that's why it is
> called Min.



But draft we are discussing here does not talk about "Min" delay. Contrary
it talks about "Max"

*Maximum* Delay sub-TLV

That is also I asked that very question up front.

Thx,
R.