Hi William & Co-authors >From first read of the draft it does appear your are trying to apply RSVP TE PCALC path and reserve message link attributes constraints such as concept of affinity bits to exclude low bandwidth or delay of individual links without taking into account all of what RSVP TE is reserving of bandwidth in the end to end path with the Path and Reserve message. As mentioned Looking at individual links will not provide the end to end path view or bandwidth requirements for the entire path to be reserved as accomplished by RSVP TE.
As Tony and Robert have mentioned I agree this is a good first step but does need more refinement to make useful. Kind Regards Gyan On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 7:24 AM Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi William & co-authors, > > I read the draft and have two basic questions. > > 1. > Both bw & delay can be used as defined in the draft to construct new > forwarding topologies. But how practical such topologies would be in the > real life when 40GB links may be heavily occupied with bursty traffic and > 10G links can sit idle ? I suppose you are trying to address the case where > say 12 gbps holographic stream needs to be sent across a network.. But then > I don't think if sending it in a single flow instead of spreading into many > sub-flows and use as much as possible ecmp would not be a better option. > > 2. > Likewise how good is my accumulated link delay value if in between there > are deep buffer network elements and say egress queuing to each link (which > max is unaccounted for in your draft) can significantly alter the end to > end delay ? Have you consider to add MAX_EGRESS_QUEUE_DELAY on a per link > basis (still as static value). So if some traffic is delay sensitive we > will have a much better accuracy not to get into a trap of queuing related > delays. > > Thx a lot, > Robert. > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 8:37 AM William Britto A J <bwilliam= > [email protected]> wrote: > >> All, >> >> >> >> We would like to draw your attention to a new ID: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-00 >> >> >> >> The draft talks about introducing link bandwidth related constraints in >> Flex-Algorithm which can be used to define a Flex-Algorithm based on >> bandwidth based metric. >> >> >> >> Please review. Any questions and comments are welcome. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> William >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *[email protected] <[email protected]> >> *Date: *Monday, 22 February 2021 at 10:56 PM >> *To: *Bruno Decraene <[email protected]>, Rajesh M < >> [email protected]>, Rajesh M <[email protected]>, Shraddha Hegde < >> [email protected]>, William Britto A J <[email protected]>, >> William Britto A J <[email protected]> >> *Subject: *New Version Notification for >> draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-00.txt >> >> [External Email. Be cautious of content] >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-00.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Shraddha Hegde and posted to the >> IETF repository. >> >> Name: draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con >> Revision: 00 >> Title: Flexible Algorithms Bandwidth Constraints >> Document date: 2021-02-22 >> Group: Individual Submission >> Pages: 21 >> URL: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-00.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QGg36p91zPfVMznYY91xs-zx70Qp5BE1nJx-Thnl14sTCkvwgOjEzjGBtD3v6TruoA$ >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-00.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QGg36p91zPfVMznYY91xs-zx70Qp5BE1nJx-Thnl14sTCkvwgOjEzjGBtD3v6TruoA$> >> Status: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QGg36p91zPfVMznYY91xs-zx70Qp5BE1nJx-Thnl14sTCkvwgOjEzjGBtD1VexjHPQ$ >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QGg36p91zPfVMznYY91xs-zx70Qp5BE1nJx-Thnl14sTCkvwgOjEzjGBtD1VexjHPQ$> >> Htmlized: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QGg36p91zPfVMznYY91xs-zx70Qp5BE1nJx-Thnl14sTCkvwgOjEzjGBtD3X5nPQbA$ >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QGg36p91zPfVMznYY91xs-zx70Qp5BE1nJx-Thnl14sTCkvwgOjEzjGBtD3X5nPQbA$> >> Htmlized: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-00__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QGg36p91zPfVMznYY91xs-zx70Qp5BE1nJx-Thnl14sTCkvwgOjEzjGBtD2aqSYcuQ$ >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-00__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QGg36p91zPfVMznYY91xs-zx70Qp5BE1nJx-Thnl14sTCkvwgOjEzjGBtD2aqSYcuQ$> >> >> >> Abstract: >> Many networks configure the link metric relative to the link >> capacity. High bandwidth traffic gets routed as per the link >> capacity. Flexible algorithms provides mechanisms to create >> constraint based paths in IGP. This draft documents a set of >> bandwidth related constraints to be used in Flexible Algorithms. >> >> >> >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >> submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> >> >> Juniper Business Use Only >> _______________________________________________ >> Lsr mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >> > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
