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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 03 March 2021 10:28 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 5DD403A0C2A for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 02:28:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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 dcRVvGu5dZ37 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 02:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (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 8BE153A0C29 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 02:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id k9so16360096lfo.12 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 02:27:59 -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=tkCspY81l/1p6pN3I4zM3T8rc2IUcMlGljzKQ8PFJA0=; b=S1RPNJVDeS0kpuIzDv5xuYLTpJ2zv322h75JWohSUaV8KN8oLcg2EdvUWtwHOyM4C3 CvFB7ptFEw2o1IubbVlA4jbY/opz8gw01xLFKjkba5JuLFCqgBaPOI+HtnYpzt0ntpsF HUTpxXSzBN2VwomRBb6+wubizhNcY3xExF+5BhaJYGVf/0BV/dX0UhOLfuLNfxxhTyhO 2+PQpqmsxp7vTiCeXMq5WIRzncZHYwzfZ6LKUXBnZ6hkR0Ez5jgQxpHsNE5AJqNutzs/ U/0SDGk8OiwLgj6MtrbUsTs6A4eHdhuNE71+nqe1wWhM+g7rDHYaqqFv31Xm0IrWrA/a THrQ==
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=tkCspY81l/1p6pN3I4zM3T8rc2IUcMlGljzKQ8PFJA0=; b=MKDU8bqDLU5EA64th5xV7cW/6CllujflzaCglJn7NTZ8B9UGcggCEThpkpcqedZqSa AYozFUfvjeLXR+1GcBZ1bMjEUBqG3Y+VBEpvQTdmY+sVAxYXh6jnMUAICe9T3+Gpz9YO 1gUUGWyESs42ulbABjIfIcI0NaPG9UJMM3TgBKRsuB2yKCwym+WHoLWrqc277Nx6pzvj TotFxiU4tNYMqL8XFvH1bEUF9JoSVb0hOzAtC8Nmb4Z2XVjysy7XhqdxkLNonXjpOCH1 iBDsxRoTunTNgCOAEhHNOgFrCp8J/4RKWaurHU08ykr9Bnf6hiu+wC+O47XtajosqfkC Ga7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5337oIkTDpy2xmkQsxCxlo4c5KPN1xLkV+P8JO/juu7prwyy/g3I i47MvKiEaaY/tnFNzEi2AZFXslOUifkAXy9OnugPrw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy+yctys/0C/LEKhkdRi/m9MKlWd3S2WEetGNBGLgj0Hx8KlyQYN2vGlGm7bZu3xEoKgzxCsVukXBEPZgifJ1s=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:712:: with SMTP id 18mr14805858lfh.591.1614767276598; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 02:27:56 -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> <CAOj+MMH2a=T-vBsD6QVChmybmdQhQXFcDg1np+v+bpKOWPbtKA@mail.gmail.com> <8be3198f-4c9c-2bae-9ce9-f283ac5305a1@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8be3198f-4c9c-2bae-9ce9-f283ac5305a1@cisco.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 11:27:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMFf_QymQLOG4mR9F_3h-njo0k2Le6eE1bKUkK6NmcLboQ@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="000000000000eabdc405bc9f4db2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/HI1Qd7_i9WCTb88pP3Q3ezu6OYg>
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 10:28:01 -0000

I am not sure I follow your logic here ...

If we are already advertising "Min Unidirectional link delay" as described
in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-13 why would we
need to define it again here in this draft ?

Also does it really make sense to advertise maximum value of minimum value
?

Thx,
R.

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 11:22 AM Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> wrote:

> Robert,
>
> On 03/03/2021 11:10, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I'm afraid you misunderstood it. FA uses "Min Unidirectional Link Delay"
> as one of its metrics. The "Maximum Delay sub-TLV"  is used to advertise
> the maximum value of the "Min Unidirectional Link Delay" that is allowed
> for the particular FA.
>
> The text should be improved in that regard though, it's not obvious, but
> I believe that's what it is.
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
> >
> > Thx,
> > R.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>