RE: Reflecting new-MAM/SAM definition in diff-te drafts

["Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <gash@att.com>]

Hi Francois,

Welcome back, I notice you've been off the list for a while.  

Regarding:

> Do you agree with Dimitry's point that it is the "Max Reservable
> Bandwidth" that should be used for constraining reservations (across
> Class-Types) - not the "Max Link Bw"- ?

No, I think more clarifications are needed, see below.
 
> If yes, would you agree that the following rules would apply for the
> "new MAM" definition:
> 	o for each value of b in the range 0 <= b <= 7: 
> 		Reserved (CTb) <= BCb, 

This definition is OK, wherein the formula can be applied to either 'normalized' (by the overbooking factor) or 'unnormalized' bandwidth.

> 	o SUM (Reserved (CTc)) <= Max Reservable Bandwidth, 
> 		for all "c" in the range 0 <= c <= (MaxCT-1)

I agree with Wai Sum that this formula is incorrect for DS-TE, since the above formula only reflects the Max Reservable Bandwidth for the entire link, and does not reflect the per-CT overbooking factor.

Since there is a per-CT overbooking factor, this must be reflected in a summation of reserved bandwidth.  As such, use of the following formula would appear to more correct:

  SUM (Reserved (CTc)/overbooking(CTc)) <= Max Link Bandwidth
    for all "c" in the range 0 <= c <= (MaxCT-1)

Thanks,
Jerry