Wai Sum, Jerry - I'm a little unclear as to your intention in the "integrated approach." Is it that the Local Overbooking Multiplier, instead of an independent representation of a CT's overbooking policy (which is what the new term "OB(CTc)" would signify), will now be rather a kind of correction factor, configured as needed link by link, to other factors which are configured globally? I think in general this wouldn't be a bad way to get compatibility with older TE procedures. However, I'm still uncomfortable with how even network-wide per-CT policies are supported using Link Size Overbooking. And the integrated approach appears to build on an understanding of how this is done: "For either per-domain per-CT overbooking or per-link per-CT overbooking, we have Reserved(CTc) = Tspec(LSPc) / OB(CTc)" and "OB(CTc) = LSOM * LSPOM(CTc) * LOM(CTc)." Specifically, how do you calculate Unreserved (CTc) using "LSPOM" when there are per-CT policies and an aggregate constraint? I don't see that BCc - Reserved (CTc) / (LSOM * LSPOM) yields an effective value to advertise. After all, if CT7 has a policy of no overbooking, even though the link generally is allowed to be overbooked, if BC7 = 50 and the CT's reservation total is 50, then Unreserved (CT7) should be 0. Thanks for clarifying, Sandy Sanford Goldfless 192 Fuller St Brookline MA 02446 617-738-1754 sandy9@rcn.com -----Original Message----- From: Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALABS [mailto:wlai@att.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:53 AM To: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch); Choudhury, Sanjaya; Dimitry Haskin; sanford goldfless Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; Jim Boyle; Ed Kern Subject: Proposal for Simplification of Overbooking Attached is an I-D that provides more details on our proposal to simplify overbooking from an operational perspective. Before posting it, we would like to hear your comments. Thanks, Wai Sum and Jerry
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>