I am not sure I follow your logic here ... If we are already advertising "Min Unidirectional link delay" as described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-13 why would we need to define it again here in this draft ?
Also does it really make sense to advertise maximum value of minimum value ? Thx, R. On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 11:22 AM Peter Psenak <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert, > > On 03/03/2021 11:10, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > Hey Peter, > > > > > Authors stated: "Whether egress queueing delay is included in the > > link > > > delay depends on the measuring mechanism." > > > > I disagree with that statement - the Min Unidirectional Link Delay is > > the value that does not include the queueing delay - that's why it is > > called Min. > > > > > > > > But draft we are discussing here does not talk about "Min" delay. > > Contrary it talks about "Max" > > > > *Maximum* Delay sub-TLV > > > > That is also I asked that very question up front. > > I'm afraid you misunderstood it. FA uses "Min Unidirectional Link Delay" > as one of its metrics. The "Maximum Delay sub-TLV" is used to advertise > the maximum value of the "Min Unidirectional Link Delay" that is allowed > for the particular FA. > > The text should be improved in that regard though, it's not obvious, but > I believe that's what it is. > > thanks, > Peter > > > > > Thx, > > R. > > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
