Re: Congestion/latency-aware routing for MPLS?

[Mark Tees <marktees () gmail com>]

In addition to RSVP or may be worth using minimum modulation settings on
the radios if possible. IE so that links completely drop and you re-route
rather than run with less bandwidth.

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 6:34 PM Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:

> I believe Jason's proposal is exactly what OP is looking for.
> >
>
> I would agree.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:28 AM Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 at 17:39, Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:
> >
> > > Auto-bandwidth won't help here if the bandwidth reduction is 'silent'
> > as stated in the first message. A 1G interface , as far as RSVP is
> > concerned, is a 1G interface, even if radio interference across it means
> > it's effectively a 500M link.
> >
> > Jason also explained the TWAMP + latency solution, which is an active
> > solution and doesn't rely on operator or automatic bandwidth providing
> > information, but network automatically measures latency and encodes
> > this information in ISIS, allowing automatic traffic engineering for
> > LSP to choose the lowest latency path.
> > I believe Jason's proposal is exactly what OP is looking for.
> >
> > --
> >   ++ytti