On 03/03/2021 11:27, Robert Raszuk wrote:
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 ?
we are not defining the metric here, we are defining the constraint that
says what is the maximum value of that metric that can be used.
thanks,
Peter
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 <ppse...@cisco.com
<mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> 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
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
