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

Dimitry Haskin <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.tewg
Message-ID <[email protected]>
> 
> Use of "Max Reservable Bandwidth" appears to be OK without 
> per-CT Local Overbooking Multipliers (LOMs).  That is, when 
> there is only *one* LOM for the entire link, then the formula 
> you give appears to be correct:
> 
>     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.

Regards,
  Dimitry
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.