RE: Two-octet bandwidth values

["Cheng, Dean" <DCheng@PolarisNetworks.com>]

Also, since the "draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-03.txt"
may be going to a RFC soon, would it be necessary to
consult with the OSPF WG at this point as well ? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 8:06 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Two-octet bandwidth values


Let's get the ball rolling.  Please send questions and comments to the
list.  Here are mine:

Questions to vendors:
1) Is floating point arithmetic a burdensome requirement?  Is having
   a new library of functions for the two-octet "floating point"
   representation a burdensome requirement?

I think the point for the two-octet approach is to save
packet space (or link resource), not work complexity.

2) Is halving the size of the bandwidth TLVs a big win (keep in mind
   that more bandwidth TLVs are being proposed)?
   (a) for ISIS?
Yes
   (b) for OSPF?
Yes
   (c) if the answers for ISIS and OSPF differ, is it acceptable to
       have different formats for the two protocols?

Questions to vendors & carriers:
1) Is 10 bits of dynamic range (0.1% accuracy) good enough?

Yes
2) Are you in favor of this draft, or against?

Yes

Kireeti.

Dean