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

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Thu, 04 March 2021 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
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 B0BD23A0D25 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 07:13:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 m9jiQctV86Ex for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 07:13:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3F3B3A0DC6 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 07:13:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1567; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1614870814; x=1616080414; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3RIKbCm//JnTRg7DLknO+JwkebHzOR1woY1xpBxkB3o=; b=GOzZiQ1a7gEZAPHl/ROXBpgWKZfsDFbyk883ZmpqYadmbf2BFy0qdnD9 kzidej1e6KwqQrJKAjC4V+5gg3l8AKyXjVyWBDSv3IrnybVN+x4LgrtNa 5ABCyveKj3SGbuhR9Wls70vk56Rwpv4nPvBwv0c3E9yHNmmLkFEDmj7Uq k=;
X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BJBQBx+EBglxbLJq1iHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQFAg?= =?us-ascii?q?U+DIVIEAScSMYRBiQSIKQglA5xLCwEBAQ8dCwwEAQGETQKBeyY4EwIDAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?wIDAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEFAEBAQEBAQEBhjYNhkQBAQEDAQEBIQ8BBTYLBQsLG?= =?us-ascii?q?AICJgICJzAGDQYCAQGCbAGCZiEPrWV2gTKFWINHgT4GgQ4qjUNCgUlCgTgMg?= =?us-ascii?q?jkuPoJcAQECAYRzgl8EgjR6LyICWyA1IJErgw4BlFuRTYMGgy+GEI9sgmkFB?= =?us-ascii?q?wMfk1WQAaASlwmBayGBWTMaCBsVO4JpUBkNjjiIaoVGQAMvAjYCBgEJAQEDC?= =?us-ascii?q?YwTAQE?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,222,1610409600"; d="scan'208";a="33914427"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 04 Mar 2021 15:13:30 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.52] (ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com [10.60.140.52]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 124FDTtD012533; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 15:13:29 GMT
To: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, Rajesh M <mrajesh@juniper.net>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>, lsr@ietf.org, William Britto A J <bwilliam@juniper.net>
References: <4E0301A4-941F-4FD3-8B66-823BC269D00E@tsinghua.org.cn>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <8ca4c6ad-22f4-3374-011e-3f16dd9afa7e@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 16:13:29 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4E0301A4-941F-4FD3-8B66-823BC269D00E@tsinghua.org.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.52, ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/o7vhLO0s1xc9HJEh79Kw9Q-q8W0>
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: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 15:13:45 -0000

Aijun,

On 04/03/2021 15:23, Aijun Wang wrote:
> Hi, Peter:
> 
> Whatever the interval is set, I think the measured value is “unpredictable parameter” and should not be used as the input factors for IGP SPF calculations by the network devices.
> Or else, the overall behavior of the network will be uncontrollable.

let me disagree.


> For the delay aware application, we prefer to using the controller to calculate and program the network devices, to let such applications traffic follow one optimized path, to meet the application’s requirements.

I don't object your personal choice.

There is sufficient interest in distributed version of delay optimized 
forwarding in the field. There are multiple implementations of flex-algo 
with delay metric available. There are also multiple deployments of it 
in the field.

thanks,
Peter


> 
> Aijun Wang
> China Telecom
> 
>> On Mar 4, 2021, at 21:30, Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 04/03/2021 14:28, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>>>> Is it minimum ever, is it min of the year, month, week, day ... etc
>>>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8570#section-4.2
>>>    Peter
>>> Maybe it is just me but in section 4.2 I see NOTHING about how often that delay should be measured which was the point above.
>>
>> it says it clearly - "over a configurable interval"
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>> Thx,
>>> R.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lsr mailing list
>> Lsr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> 
> 
>