RE: Reflecting new-MAM/SAM definition in diff-te drafts
"Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.tewg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hello Dimitry, Jerry, Waisum, >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dimitry Haskin [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: 20 May 2003 16:58 >> To: 'Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS'; Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) >> Cc: [email protected]; Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALABS; Dimitry Haskin >> Subject: RE: Reflecting new-MAM/SAM definition in diff-te drafts >> >> >> > >> > 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. >> I've been using "Reserved" and "Normalised" as per their definitions in the proto draft, the RDM draft and the MAM draft. Quoting from these drafts: ================================== - "Reserved (CTc)": For a given Class-Type CTc ( 0 <= c <= MaxCT ) ,let us define "Reserved(CTc)" as the sum of the bandwidth reserved by all established LSPs which belong to CTc. - Normalised(CTc) : let us define "Normalised(CTc)" as "Reserved(CTc)/LOM(c)", where LOM (c) is the Local Overbooking Multiplier for CTc defined in [DSTE-PROTO]. ===================================== What that means is that "Reserved(CTc)" does factor in the overbooking method which is refered to as "LSP/link size overbooking" method and is the overbooking method commonly used in TE networks. However, it does NOT factor in the optional "Local Overbooking Multiplier" method. "Normalised (CTc)" factors-in both the "LSP/link size overbooking" and the optional "Local Overbooking Multiplier" method. Definitions of the "LSP/link size overbooking" method and "Local overbooking Multiplier" method can be found in section "4.1.2. per-CT Local Overbooking Multipliers (LOMs) of the dste-proto draft. Based on this, my proposal is to include the following condition to reflect the aggregate constraint when both overbooking methods are used (ie "LSP/link size overbooking" method and "Local overbooking Multiplier" method): o SUM (Normalised (CTc)) <= Max Reservable Bandwidth, for all "c" in the range 0 <= c <= (MaxCT-1) where "Normalised (CTc) is equal to "Reserved(CTc)/LOM(c)" as currently defined in RDM and MAM drafts. Thanks Francois >> Regards, >> Dimitry >>