Not sure what's the difference between the two. But I guess let't wait for authors to clarify their intentions here.
Cheers, R. On Wed, Mar 3, 2021, 11:47 Peter Psenak <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert, > > On 03/03/2021 11:41, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > > > Sorry but to me the draft is very clear that it does not care about min > > delay, but possible maximum delay of a link ... > > "maximum link delay constraint" != "max link delay" > > You are not listening. > > Peter > > > > > After all for time sensitive applications we do care how long it will > > take to actually traverse a path in practice not what would be the > > theoretical min amount of time needed for this path to be traversed. > > > > And it does define it here as brand new metric. > > > > Just read this paragraph as well as sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2. > > <http://3.2.2.>: > > > > Similarly, exclude maximum link delay constraint is also defined in > > this document. Links may have the link delay measured dynamically > > and advertised in delay metric in IGP. For usecases that deploy low > > latency flex-algo, may want to exclude links that have delay more > > than a defined threshold. > > > > Thx, > > R. > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 11:31 AM Peter Psenak <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > 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 <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[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
