Hi Robert- From: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 5:59 AM To: Tony Li <[email protected]> Cc: Colby Barth <[email protected]>, RTGWG <[email protected]> Subject: Re: TTE [External Email. Be cautious of content]
Tony, No, we’re trying to protect against unpredicted load. That doesn’t mean that TE was very badly provisioned, just that it wasn’t perfect. Whatever the root cause, congestion does happen and we want to try to address it. Since very early days of RSVP-TE one fundamental recommendation we were giving operators was to always do policing/rate-limiting what goes into a TE-LSP on ingress. There is nothing more or less perfect about it - it is either in place or not. Such policing/rate-limiting would also auto adjust when auto-bandwidth has been enabled. So if the unexpected traffic entered the network it was either dropped or shaped on ingress. <cb> Ingress rate limiting doesn’t adapt to load. It just drops or passes (may remark in some cases contributing to congestion further). Auto-bw does adapt but as has been previously mentioned, auto-b/w adjustments can take time on the order of minutes. TTE is meant to bridge the time gap while auto-bw (or something like auto-bw) does it’s optimization. --Colby You are talking about unpredicted load suddenly appearing in the middle of the network and NOT as a result of already single network failure. I guess you are still confirming that you will not protect with TTE traffic which is already protected with vanilla FRR due to node/link failure. Regards, R. Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
