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

[Jim Boyle <jboyle@pdnets.com>]

So is there agreement now?

If so, what's the fallout?

I don't want to pull the reqt's out of IESG, and as stated in the list, it 
isnt the place MAM is defined (sorry SAM, I think we have enough bandwidth 
models).

Francois, can you re-propose changes for proto, RDM and MAM?

thanks,

Jim

btw... I also think LOMs are lots of complexity for little gain :)



On Tue, 20 May 2003, Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) wrote:

> Jerry,
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS [mailto:gash@att.com] 
> >> Sent: 20 May 2003 17:35
> >> To: Dimitry Haskin; Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)
> >> Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; te-wg@ops.ietf.org; Lai, 
> >> Wai S (Waisum), ALABS
> >> Subject: RE: Reflecting new-MAM/SAM definition in diff-te drafts
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Dimitry, Francois,
> >> 
> >> > >     o SUM (Reserved (CTc)) <= Max Reservable Bandwidth, 
> >> > >         for all "c" in the range 0 <= c <= (MaxCT-1)
> >> > > 
> >> > > However, this formula is incorrect for DS-TE when per-CT 
> >> > > LOM's are used, since the above formula only reflects the Max 
> >> > > Reservable Bandwidth for the entire link, and does not 
> >> > > reflect the per-CT local overbooking factors.  So what 
> >> > > formula do you suggest when per-CT LOM's are used?
> >> 
> >> > Wouldn't 'Reserved (CTc)' it the above formula already 
> >> accounts for the
> >> > overbooking multiplier at CTc?  I don't see how this 
> >> formula precludes
> >> > per-CT LOM's to be used. Please explain.
> >> 
> >> Are you then proposing these formulas:
> >> 
> >> 1. When per-CT LOMs are not used:
> >> 
> >>      o SUM (Reserved(CTc)) <= Max Reservable Bandwidth, 
> >>          for all "c" in the range 0 <= c <= (MaxCT-1)
> >> 
> >> 2. When per-CT LOMs are used:
> >> 
> >>      o SUM (Normalized(CTc)) <= Max Reservable Bandwidth, 
> >>          for all "c" in the range 0 <= c <= (MaxCT-1)
> >> 
> >> Is that correct?  Please confirm, and/or give the formulas 
> >> you propose.
> 
> Yes, this is exactly what I propose.
> I think this is similar to what you were proposing, only using "Max Res
> Bw" instead of "Max Link Bw". 
> 
> Sorry I didn't make that very clear before.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> FRancois
> 
> >> 
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jerry
> >> 
> 
> 
> 
>