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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>