Sorry for spelling mistakens in the previous email.
updated text:
Hi WG,
I have a little doubt about the scheme described in this document.
See the following example:
S ---- X1 ----- X2 ---- ... ... ----- X10 ----- D
\----------------------------------------------/
Suppose the links in S---X1---X2...---D have the same bandwidth 10G, and the
link S-D has bandwidth 1G.
Suppose that we select "reference bandwidth = 100G", then,
each link in S---X1---X2...---D will have the same bandwidth-metric 10 (i.e.,
100/10)
link S-D will have a bandwidth-metric 100 (i.e., 100/1)
So flex-algo path from S to D based on bandwidth-metric will be S-D, not
S---X1---X2...---D, because the later has a large cumulative bandwitdh-metric
(i.e., 11*10).
But our expect path should not be S-D, but S---X1---X2...---D, as it has large
bandwidth.
Do I misunderstand anything ?
Regards,
PSF
发件人：AceeLindem(acee)
收件人：lsr@ietf.org;
抄送人：draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org;
日 期 ：2021年05月13日 05:49
主 题 ：[Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay,
Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Esteemed Members of the LSR WG,
This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con/
Please indicate your support or objection by May 27th, 2021.
Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR
that applies to this draft.
Thanks,
Chris and Acee_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
