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

["Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <flefauch@cisco.com>]

Hi Jim,

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Boyle [mailto:jboyle@pdnets.com] 
>> Sent: 24 May 2003 02:31
>> To: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)
>> Cc: te-wg@ops.ietf.org; Lai, Wai S , ALABS
>> Subject: RE: Reflecting new-MAM/SAM definition in diff-te drafts 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> So is there agreement now?
>> 

Working on it. Almost there (I think).

>> 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).

Alright. It seems the potential inconsistency I was worrying about
between the current MAM definition in -rqts and the upcoming MAM spec
isn't such a worry for most people, so let's take the easiest path:
	- leave -reqts as it is
	- keep the MAM name for the MAM spec and update the definition
in there.

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

Will try do as soon as we have closed on the overbooking discussion (and
perhaps also on the removal/keeping of LOM).

Thanks

Francois
 
>> 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
>> > >> 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>>