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