Hi, I think this work is very interesting and could serve a very broad use case as mentioned by others in this thread as well.
For example I would like to see, and offer to help out write those, the working of NETWORK_LATENCY in combination with ADD-PATH. This particular example would offer a downstream network to select best paths based on the NETWORK_LATENCY property inside a given network. Would the authors be interested in exploring this? I do also agree that this maybe should not be a seperate SAFI. I'm interested in discussing further. Regards, Melchior On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:37 AM Ondrej Zajicek <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > My main objection to the draft is it uses separate SAFI to signal that > latency based routing is used. I don't think that is a good idea. Latency > based routing is a general concept, which makes sense to use with several > existing SAFIs (at least 1, 4 and 128). Whether or not announce and > use NETWORK_LATENCY TLV should be an independent session property, like > using AIGP TLV or e.g. ADD-PATH extension. > > This is an issue that was underspecified in RFC 7311, just kept by > configuration of both sides. Perhaps we need a new capability to specify > which AIGP TLVs (if any) are supposed to be used on the session, so it > can be negotiated automatically like ADD-PATH. > > -- > Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: [email protected]) > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
