All TEWGers,
Thoughts on dropping/keeping LOM in base DS-TE specs?
Thanks
Francois
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)
>> Sent: 26 May 2003 14:59
>> To: Kireeti Kompella; te-wg@ops.ietf.org
>> Subject: Dropping the Local Overbooking Multiplier (LOM)
>> method from DS-TE specs?
>>
>>
>> Kireeti,
>>
>> Once upon a time, we merged 3 technical proposals for DS-TE (one of
>> which was yours) into a common one. One of the capabilities that was
>> unique to your proposal was the ability to support overbooking ratios
>> which are different on a per CT AND per link basis (while the other
>> methods supported different ratios on different links and different
>> ratios on a per CT basis, not not on a per CT and per-link
>> basis). Back
>> then you made a argument that there was some value in allowing this.
>> This resulted in the addition of the optional Local Overbooking
>> Multiplier (LOM) method in the DS-TE specs.
>>
>> A number of people commented that considering the ratio of
>> complexity vs
>> functionality for this particular capability, we may be better off
>> issueing the base DS-TE specs without this for now and then add this
>> capability later or in a separate document. I personnally also favors
>> such an approach.
>>
>> What is your take on this?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Francois
>>
>> >> -----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
>> >>
>> >>
>> <clip>
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >> > >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>