>> However, I don't think that the draft needs queue level information -- >> interface counters is sufficient. Or am I missing something?
Thanks Warren -- you said it right. For this draft, we need only interface counters. Thanks, Ramki -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Warren Kumari Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 7:04 AM To: Randy Bush Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG last call for "Mechanisms for Optimal LAG/ECMP Component Link Utilization in Networks" On Sep 10, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: >> I would need a bit more clarity on what is "per circuit". The >> mechanism works by looking at the utilization on individual component >> links within a LAG/ECMP. The port-level queues and packet/byte >> counters are always visible to an implementation. > > for some definitions of 'always'. a few of us would greatly appreciate > if you could tell us the commands on junos and cisco XR to look at a > lag's per-physical-circuit queues. Yes, yes we would. A large number of implementations provide almost no visibility into the interface queues (even if you throw your toys out the cot, threaten to change vendors, etc), regardless of if the interface is part of LAG or not... However, I don't think that the draft needs queue level information -- interface counters is sufficient. Or am I missing something? W > > randy > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > -- "When it comes to glittering objects, wizards have all the taste and self-control of a deranged magpie." -- Terry Pratchett _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
