RE: Preemption with MAM RE:

Dimitry Haskin <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.tewg
Message-ID <[email protected]>
> 
> Dimmtry,
> 
> Francois,
> 
> > 
> > It may be that another model which has independent bandwidth 
> > constraint + aggregate constraint (this would basically be a 
> > hybrid between MAM and RDM) is a reasonable idea; but this is 
> > not MAM as it is currently defined.
> > 
> 
> Incidentally this is exactly what I have been assuming 
> regarding the MAM
> model. However I agree this is not reflected in the current MAM
> specification(s).
> 
> In current MAM specification, 
> do we have to define the maximum bandwidth such that sum of 
> the maximum bandwidth of each CT should be the link capacity ?

What is definition of the "link capacity" in your question? The aggregate
constraint (aka the maximum reservable link B/W) can be higher (or lower)
than the actual link capacity.

An aggregate constraint does not have to be equal to the sum of the
corresponding individual b/w constraints. However this might be a reasonable
thing to configure when preemption is not used.

Dimitry
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Geunhyung
> 
> > Francois
> > 
> 
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.