Re: [Lsr] Doubt regarding A bit set/clear

Gurusiddesh Nidasesi <gurusiddesh.nidasesi@ipinfusion.com> Fri, 23 April 2021 05:33 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <C8D3F1D2-728D-4DE2-98FA-3155716DF241@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C8D3F1D2-728D-4DE2-98FA-3155716DF241@cisco.com>
From: Gurusiddesh Nidasesi <gurusiddesh.nidasesi@ipinfusion.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:02:49 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHhGMfGJbs8mgV6OrnPQ+r-ziL5VMOMiPF+w-3D1SfhX_UTTSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "spencer.giacalone@gmail.com" <spencer.giacalone@gmail.com>, "stefano@previdi.net" <stefano@previdi.net>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Dona Maria John <dona.john@ipinfusion.com>, Vikram Agrawal <vikram.agrawal@ipinfusion.com>, Mahalakshmi Kumar <mahalakshmi.udhaya@ipinfusion.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000029dd7b05c09d21e5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/SbWvAXasAtC6uaSAyi8Zwek4f54>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Doubt regarding A bit set/clear
Precedence: list

Hi All.

*Gentle Reminder!*

Regards,
Gurusiddesh V N

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:54 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

> Gurusiddesh,
>
>
>
> I’ll defer to the RFC authors on your question. However, please refrain
> from referring to bits as being “unset”. They are set or clear.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Gurusiddesh Nidasesi <
> gurusiddesh.nidasesi@ipinfusion.com>
> *Date: *Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13 AM
> *To: *"lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
> *Cc: *Spencer Giacalone <spencer.giacalone@gmail.com>, Stefano Previdi <
> stefano@previdi.net>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>,
> Dona Maria John <dona.john@ipinfusion.com>, Vikram Agrawal <
> vikram.agrawal@ipinfusion.com>, Mahalakshmi Kumar <
> mahalakshmi.udhaya@ipinfusion.com>
> *Subject: *[Lsr] Doubt regarding A bit set/unset
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I had a query regarding setting/unsetting A bit.
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8570#section-4.1 states that
>
> A bit:  This field represents the Anomalous (A) bit.  The A bit is
>
>       set when the measured value of this parameter exceeds its
>
>       configured maximum threshold.  The A bit is cleared when the
>
>       measured value falls below its configured reuse threshold.  If the
>
>       A bit is cleared, the sub-TLV represents steady-state link
>
>       performance.
>
>
>
> So does it mean we have to have two configurations one for reuse and another for maximum threshold?
>
> Will below example follow the RFC?
>
> reuse threshold : 50 usec
>
> maximum threshold : 100 usec
>
> 1st measured value : 110 usec
>
> conclusion: Set A bit.
>
>
>
> 2nd measured value : 75 usec
>
> conclusion : Do nothing (Maintain pervious state of A bit as the value is less than reuse or greater than threshold)
>
>
>
> 3rd measurement value : 30 usec
>
> conclusion: Unset A bit.
>
>
>
>  If we have to have two configuration for threshold to set/unset A bit, will they be different from the threshold that we use for advertisements?
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gurusiddesh V N
>
>
> .
>


-- 
Thanks,
Gurusiddesh V N

-- 
.

Re: [Lsr] Doubt regarding A bit set/clear Acee Lindem (acee)
Re: [Lsr] Doubt regarding A bit set/clear Gurusiddesh Nidasesi
Re: [Lsr] Doubt regarding A bit set/clear Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Re: [Lsr] Doubt regarding A bit set/clear Gurusiddesh Nidasesi
Re: [Lsr] Doubt regarding A bit set/clear Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Re: [Lsr] Doubt regarding A bit set/clear Gurusiddesh Nidasesi