Hi Acee, John Drake and I did take a look at the draft mentioned in CCAMP. It had a large number of requirements and extensions to a number of different protocols. There is one sub-TLV (latency) that appears the same - but the expectations as to averaging vs. instantaneous were different.
The OSPF TE Express Path work is fairly self-contained and doesn't specify in exact detail how the information for the sub-TLVs is measured or obtained. I think it could be used for multiple purposes. Alia On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Spencer (CCAMP copied as well), > > Here is a link for everyone's convenience: > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01.txt > > At IETF 80, there were questions about overlap with other CCAMP drafts > containing interface delay metrics and proposals for new TE sub-TLVs. Have > you or your co-authors, done looked at how your draft is positioned versus > these other drafts? While these applications have differing goals, the > CCAMP/OSPF chairs requested that this analysis be done. > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wang-ccamp-latency-te-metric-03.txt > > We would like to avoid having exactly the same information advertised in two > different link Sub-TLVs. I'd hope we could agree on common units. > > Thanks, > Acee > > On Jun 20, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Spencer Giacalone wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> As you may have noticed, another version of the OSPF TE Express Path >> draft has been posted. We made a number of changes based on feedback >> from IETF 80. We invite your comments and suggestions. The main >> changes include: >> >> -We have consolidated some sub-TLVs for efficiency. There are no >> longer nominal and anomalous sub-TLVs for delay and loss. The >> functionality for signaling steady state verses abnormal performance >> for these parameters have been moved into two sub-TLVs (where we used >> to have four). >> >> -In order to advertise both normal and abnormal network performance >> state in consolidated sub-TLVs, a bit, called the anomalous (A) but >> has been added to certain sub-TLVs. The A bit is set when the measured >> value of a parameter exceeds a configured maximum threshold. The A bit >> is cleared when the measured value falls below its configured reuse >> threshold. If the A bit is clear, the sub-TLV represents steady state >> link performance. >> >> -We changed the encodings of certain variables from floating point to >> fixed point. This change permits the addition of the A bit (when >> necessary), it allows bit-space reservations to be made, and it >> permits a common TLV format across the bulk of the TLVs in the draft. >> In addition, the new encodings address concerns about granularity and >> interoperability. >> >> -We added sub-TLVs for Residual Bandwidth and Available Bandwidth. >> Residual bandwidth is defined as the Maximum Bandwidth [RFC3630] minus >> the bandwidth currently allocated to RSVP-TE LSPs. Available bandwidth >> is defined to be residual bandwidth minus the measured bandwidth used >> for the actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE LSP packets. >> >> -Various other modifications were made across the draft. These >> include, but are not limited to, the abstract, the introduction, the >> thresholding specifications, and a number of field descriptions. >> >> -Last, but certainly not least, Stefano Providi has joined the draft >> >> We look forward to hearing your comments and concerns. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Spencer, Alia, Dave, John, Stefano >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
