Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6995511E80EF for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:05:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZJdeku97TmaN for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:05:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-x234.google.com (mail-vb0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84CAA11E80DE for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:05:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f52.google.com with SMTP id fa15so1370339vbb.39 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:05:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=igRfe/tovaseFE7atoKcv5xitjAq84ZxYUD7qcpYl/U=; b=R/Bje1dxDo2KyB0T1ly/HxhNGHTFigwxuUgvMMfMO5dceY0ZD7FCYWTD0lbof0eDux W9T5/YRIwFVa3jKK/7yQmikdWaGHAaEUxnkAq2wQPD1JAwB5n6Is+K6lzohAmN0XMzf0 nDvA6NW2yYqU0iNvWAFUiHf7SbZtn8Fr4o2mFchfzBFZKs0B5F1Fuvrr0sGnP1QxJepF c+f5ivDh3MfzQSJBNc0QfYP3zq9B2fE8xOLW0XC2Kzt75Y4n918v2bOis59iZijcnG7K e/HJVrFk++3wyRttDfTBTh3AGRdF/KibAyq1NdKwOcoTVSku04H7Z4A4bvaVH3Py54on +2PA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.59.11.67 with SMTP id eg3mr9885292ved.31.1363809950758; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:05:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.217.73 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:05:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF112073408@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> References: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF112073408@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:05:50 -0700 Message-ID: From: Greg Mirsky To: "ospf@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf0ec72a7fea704d860bf83 Subject: [OSPF] Fwd: FW: [Isis-wg] IGP-TE extensions for unidirectional Link Delay, Delay Variation, and Link Loss X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 20:05:55 -0000 --047d7bf0ec72a7fea704d860bf83 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Making it to OSPF WG, finally. ------------------------------ *From:* Gregory Mirsky *Sent:* Wednesday, March 20, 2013 10:16 AM *To:* 'Alia Atlas' *Cc:* Clarence Filsfils; akatlas@juniper.net; Spencer.giacalone@thomsonreuters.com; isis-wg@ietf.org; sprevidi@cisco.com; John E Drake; ospf-wg@ietf.org; wardd@cisco.com *Subject:* RE: [Isis-wg] IGP-TE extensions for unidirectional Link Delay, Delay Variation, and Link Loss Hi Alia, et al., I was thinking about reflecting queuing without actually measuring it. I think that major concern with measuring dynamic queuing is that we have only active, including synthetic, measuring methods that change the process, at least that is to the best of my knowledge. But there're discussions on passive and/or hybrid methods that will be less distractive to the traffic. But there's another approach that I see as most practical at this time - AQM. AQM can be expressed in maximum queuing delay and it will exactly characterize unidirectional delay, delay variation on the given link. Again, it might not happen tomorrow but I believe that it is beneficial to make tool flexible for the future, perhaps near future. Regards, Greg ------------------------------ *From:* Alia Atlas [mailto:akatlas@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, March 20, 2013 2:05 AM *To:* Gregory Mirsky *Cc:* Clarence Filsfils; akatlas@juniper.net; Spencer.giacalone@thomsonreuters.com; isis-wg@ietf.org; sprevidi@cisco.com; John E Drake; ospf-wg@ietf.org; wardd@cisco.com *Subject:* Re: [Isis-wg] IGP-TE extensions for unidirectional Link Delay, Delay Variation, and Link Loss I agree with Spencer that I don't see the extra information on a per-queue being useful if we are not measuring dynamic queuing behavior and delay. How do you see these values being different? Where would you get them from while avoiding the concerns about a traffic-dependent feedback loop? Alia On Mar 19, 2013 3:14 AM, "Gregory Mirsky" wrote: > Dear Authors, et al., > As mentioned at the mike during IS-IS WG meeting in Orlando, I believe > that three parameters, Link Delay, Delay Variation, and Link Loss are per > priority/Traffic Class. Other link characteristics introduced in > draft-previdi-isis-te-metric-extensions- and > draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions- documents, Residual Bandwidth and > Available Bandwidth, might not have distinct per priority connotation. > > I think that per priority advertisement does not imply dynamic queuing > being included, not suggest how these metrics get their values (dynamic > measurement or estimate), but allows more realistically characterize a link. > > Comments, suggestions are welcome and greatly appreciated. > > Regards, > Greg > > > _______________________________________________ > Isis-wg mailing list > Isis-wg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > > --047d7bf0ec72a7fea704d860bf83 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Making it to OSPF WG, finally.

From: Gregory Mirsky
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 10:16 AM
To: 'Alia Atlas'
Cc: Clarence Filsfils; akatlas@juniper.net; Spencer.giacalone@thomsonreuters.com; isis-wg@ietf.org; sprevidi@cisco.= com; John E Drake; ospf-wg@ietf.org; wardd@cisco.com
Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] IGP-TE extensions for unidirectional Link Del= ay, Delay Variation, and Link Loss

Hi Alia, et al.,
I was thinking about reflecting queuing without actually measuring it. I = think that major concern with measuring dynamic queuing is that we have onl= y active, including synthetic,=A0measuring methods that change the process, at least= that is to the best of my knowledge. But there're discussions on passi= ve and/or hybrid methods that will be less distractive to the traffic. But = there's another approach that I see as most practical at this time - AQM. AQM can be expressed in maximum queuing= delay and it will exactly characterize unidirectional delay, delay variati= on on the given link.
Again, it might not happen tomorrow but I believe that it is beneficial t= o make tool flexible for the future, perhaps near future.
=A0
=A0=A0=A0 Regards,
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Greg

From: Alia Atlas [mailto:akatlas@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 2:05 AM
To: Gregory Mirsky
Cc: Clarence Filsfils; akatlas@juniper.net; Spencer.giacalone@thomsonreuters.com; isis-wg@ietf.org; sprevidi@cisco.= com; John E Drake; ospf-wg@ietf.org; wardd@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] IGP-TE extensions for unidirectional Link Del= ay, Delay Variation, and Link Loss

I agree with Spencer that I don't see the extra informat= ion on a per-queue being useful if we are not measuring dynamic queuing beh= avior and delay.

How do you see these values being different?=A0=A0 Where wou= ld you get them from while avoiding the concerns about a traffic-dependent = feedback loop?

Alia

On Mar 19, 2013 3:14 AM, "Gregory Mirsky&qu= ot; <gr= egory.mirsky@ericsson.com> wrote:
Dear Authors, et al.,
As mentioned at the mike during IS-IS WG meeting in Orlando, I believe= that three parameters, Link Delay, Delay Variation, and Link Loss are per = priority/Traffic Class. Other link characteristics introduced in draft-prev= idi-isis-te-metric-extensions- and draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions- documents, Residual Bandwidth and Av= ailable Bandwidth, might not have distinct per priority connotation.
=A0
I think that per priority advertisement does not imply dynamic queuing= being included, not suggest how these metrics get their values (dynamic me= asurement or estimate), but allows more realistically characterize a link.<= /div>
=A0
Comments, suggestions are welcome and greatly appreciated.
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Regards,
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Greg
=A0

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
Isis-wg@ietf.org<= br> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg


--047d7bf0ec72a7fea704d860bf83--