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
