RE: WG last call: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-04.txt

["Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALASO" <wlai@att.com>]

Nabil,
  Thanks for your input.  The intent of my draft is exactly like
what you described below: to understand the trade-offs of the two
models currently described in the requirements doc, and also what
works, what breaks under different scenarios.
Thanks, Wai Sum.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nabil Seddigh [mailto:nseddigh@tropicnetworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 3:46 PM
To: Geib, Ruediger
Cc: jboyle@pdnets.com; Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALASO; te-wg@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG last call: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-04.txt



Waisum

It would be nice if your draft could also explore the different
implications of the two models.

The Russian Doll model forces a network to utilize
different pre-emption levels for different classes of traffic
whereas the Maximum Allocation model does not. On the other hand,
the Russian Doll model allows borrowing between classes while
the Max Alloc model doesn't support this. The network operators
will need to analyze the tradeoffs in supporting one model
vs another.

I am concerned about this WG mandating one default model versus
another - won't it depend on the network circumstances?

Best,
Nabil Seddigh


> 
> Waisum, Jim
> 
> > Anyone else have any comment?
> 
> I've expected an analysis of both mechanisms to show
> the results forwarded by Waisum. What I'd also expect
> is that the signaling load required by the Russian
> Doll bandwidth constraint model is higher than the
> load resulting from a maximum allocation. This could
> also mean, that processing load may be smaller with
> maximum allocation.
> 
> Waisum, did you also analyse these aspects?
> 
> Regards, Rüdiger
> 
> Rüdiger Geib
> Senior Expert
> Systems Integration
> T-Systems Nova GmbH
> Technologiezentrum
> Am Kavalleriesand 3, 64295 Darmstadt
> Germany
> Fon: +49 6151 832138
> Fax: +49 6151 838103
> mailto:Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com
> http://www.t-nova.de
>