Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt
Ondrej Zajicek <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.idr |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20191016093720.GA2427__20905.8752328687$1571218677$gmane$org@feanor.crfreenet.org> |
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]) _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr