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 
>>
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.