Hi Jim, Thank you for your comments.
> On Apr 2, 2023, at 5:19 AM, UTTARO, JAMES <[email protected]> wrote: > > Tony, > > I am unsure of the problem you are solving with this draft.. In the > introduction "Unforseen and/or dynamic events, can skew..." Certainly > unforeseen events are not accounted for in the estimate based on historical > demands, what is meant by "dynamic changes" ? and how does it differ from > "unforeseen" ? No difference, just a bit of poetic license. Fundamentally, the problem that we’re trying to address are loads that change in unanticipated ways and at a higher frequency than global path optimization can support. > The draft goes into addressing predictable patterns of network utilization > using the example of "follow the sun". This is predictable and should be > captured and be part of the historical pattern.. This may be captured and > addressed in a set of changes that 'migrate" traffic to under utilized links. > Of course, this may impact latency or some other metric that is used in SLAs. > > How does the solution deal with placing flows on a "backup path" which then > may become congested creating a "ping pong " effect within a sub-graph of the > topology? As previously discussed, TTE assumes that there is adequate capacity engineered into backup paths. Such capacity should already be present to account for link failures. > There is no discussion in re the longevity of a given set of flows as input > to the "flow selection", an example you use " a singer my announce...", I > would think this would result in many small flows congesting the link which > are most likely short lived.. This is opposed to long lived elephant flows > used in the middle of the night for machine-2-machin type applications. That’s a fair point, thank you. Flow selection is an interesting topic, to be sure. Tony _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
