Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Question on path-metric-optimize include and exclude #264

Closed
italobusi opened this issue Feb 9, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #262
Closed

Question on path-metric-optimize include and exclude #264

italobusi opened this issue Feb 9, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #262

Comments

@italobusi
Copy link
Collaborator

The path-metric-optimize-includes and path-metric-optimize-excludes identities have been defined with the base path-metric-type in RFC8776 in order to be used within grouping optimization-metric-entry

With the current definition it is also possible to use them as path-metric-bound as well as path-properties. However, it is not fully clear how they can be used in these two cases

Note: they could also be used as tiebreaker-type but this depends on the resolution of issue #263

@italobusi
Copy link
Collaborator Author

italobusi commented Feb 9, 2024

2024-02-09 TE Call

  • @italobusi : send via e-mail to trigger discussion on this issue
  • @tsaad-dev : check if these metrics are applicable as path metric bounds or as path properties

@italobusi italobusi assigned italobusi and tsaad-dev and unassigned italobusi Feb 9, 2024
@italobusi
Copy link
Collaborator Author

2024-02-16 TE call

Define a new base identity for path optimization metrics, such that:

  • All the path metrics are also path optimization metrics;
  • These two identities are path optimization metrics but not path metrics.

The metric types used for optimization should be path optimization metrics, while the metric types use for path metric bounds or properties should be path metric types.

italobusi added a commit to italobusi/te that referenced this issue Feb 16, 2024
italobusi added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 22, 2024
- Added description of the YANG model changes in [draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-09](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-09)
- Replaced references to RFC3272 with references to RFC9522: fix #261 
- Updated tiebreaker definition: fix #263 
- Updated optimization metrics: fix #264 
- Clean-up link and path metrics for generic and packet TE types: fix #103 
- Added description of the changes from RFC8776: fix #220
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants