Re: [spring] measurement requirements (was Re: [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths)

2017-11-17 Thread Zafar Ali (zali)
Hi Martin and all, Re: Requirement document. We already have a working group document on SR OAM requirement document, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement-03. We should add counter requirements to it. n.b. Please note that “we = WG” here. I use “we” to refer to

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

2017-11-17 Thread Martin Horneffer
Hi Stewart, a quick comment on this, from an operator's point of view: Yes, we do need the same measurements for LDP as well as for SR. The exact kind of counter may be debatable. From what we have now, per-FEC counters (per-SID for SR) on every node seem like the best practical and

[spring] measurement requirements (was Re: [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths)

2017-11-17 Thread Martin Horneffer
Hi, first thank you Shraddha for bringing the topic of traffic measurement to the lists. And thanks to Stephane for focusing on the - from my point of view - most important aspects. Apparently you can have different requirement for traffic measurement and based on those you'll need more or

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

2017-11-17 Thread Robert Raszuk
Stewart, Cariden Mate based on the topology and netflow computes accurate live trafic matrix from src to dst and includes transit points for years. It even estimates load upon failure of a node or a link. The entire discussion here clearly does not consider or is just not aware about tools