Hi Alia, On Jun 21, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> Hi Acee, > > I do agree that we should explicitly document this in the draft & work > on better names for the sub-TLVs that might be confused. Note that it may be the it may be the names in the Y.1540/Y.1541 TE latency draft that need further qualification since their definitions are more strictly scoped. Anyway, lets see how the discussion on where this should be done proceeds. > I also agree that we need to give the decision explicit consideration; > to give this the exposure necessary and consideration for > applications was why we had this draft discussed in rtgwg as well as ospf. Great - I think we are in agreement. I'm not adamantly opposed to doing TE independently for applications falling into this category - I just think we should have the discussion Lou is proposing. Thanks, Acee > > In addition to the obvious uses for RSVP-TE, another potential > application is the idea of a path-weighted ECMP, where traffic is > split to the different next-hops based upon the total path bandwidths > out those next-hops. This is a pure IP application (LDP follows > of course) and I'd prefer not to lose track of those options when > considering the RSVP-TE applications. > > Alia > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Alia, >> I guess I agree with Lou - heretofore, we've done TE requirements in the >> MPLS/CCAMP WGs and the TE encodings in the IGP WGs. I think we should give >> the decision explicit consideration before we branch off and do TE for >> application X independently. Additionally, if we do decide to split this off >> independently, an E-mail to the list saying there is no overlap is not >> sufficient to move forward. At a minimum, I believe we need to: >> >> 1. Explicitly document this alternate applicability and relationship to >> existing TE in the draft. >> 2. Determine whether any sub-TLVs can be shared (my opinion was consistent >> with yours that there are not due to differences in requirements and >> measurement). >> 3. Assure the sub-TLVs are appropriately named to avoid confusion between >> the latency applications. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> On Jun 21, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: >> >>> 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
