IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WGLC completed on draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-03

fu.xihua@zte.com.cn Wed, 23 February 2011 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <fu.xihua@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A43F3A6A39; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:33:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -95.961
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.185, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YaTPAAuVGYEg; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:33:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [63.218.89.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FD9C3A6877; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:33:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.34.0.130] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 35103898117248; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 04:32:03 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.20] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 23516.5422451558; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 04:25:15 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p1NKY8dk044506; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 04:34:08 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from fu.xihua@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <B0DEE77C-F025-47E0-A8C9-CA558FBDDD86@tony.li>
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Subject: Re: WGLC completed on draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-03
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005
Message-ID: <OF9CAA9BB3.216881F1-ON48257840.0070C473-48257840.0070FD46@zte.com.cn>
From: fu.xihua@zte.com.cn
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 04:34:04 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-02-24 04:34:07, Serialize complete at 2011-02-24 04:34:07
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0070FD3C48257840_="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn p1NKY8dk044506
Cc: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:33:30 -0000

Hi Tony,

You can carry some information which is used for the component selection 
during the signaling.

Xihua Fu




Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> 
2011-02-24 上午 03:11

收件人
fu.xihua@zte.com.cn
抄送
Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, 
rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org
主题
Re: WGLC completed on draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-03







Hi Xihua,

> I think we may catch the solution from rfc4201 and 
draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-resource-control-bundle-08 for bandwidth. 
> For latency, thert is a description about it in 
draft-wang-ccamp-latency-te-metric-02. There may be two choice . 
> 1. "When the composite link is advertised into IGP, the latency of 
composite link should be the range (e.g., at least minimum and maximum) 
latency value of all component links." - comment from Dave 
> 2. " When the composite link is advertised into IGP, the latency of 
composite link should be the maximum latency value of all component 
links." 


Yes, these possible solutions fall into the variations where you transmit 
only partial information in the IGP.  In these cases, the head-end has 
insufficient information to determine whether a particular path can 
support its bandwidth, delay, and jitter requirements.  Again, this leads 
to crankback.

Tony

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email