RE: Reflecting new-MAM/SAM definition in diff-te drafts [owner-te [email protected] in Pass-Through List] ['from' in Pass-Through List] [own [email protected] in Pass-Through List] ['from' in Pass-Through List]
"Choudhury, Sanjaya" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.tewg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF8F5498@whq-msgusr-02.pit.comms.marconi.com> |
>
> Again, assuming we define LSOM as the "Link Size Overbooking
> Multiplier"
> (as opposed to the "LSP/Link Size Overbooking Multiplier"),
> then I agree
> with your relationship.
>
> Thanks for helping get all this clarified.
>
> Francois
Hi! I am not sure it is necessary to introduce the concept
of a new multiplier ("LSOM") in DSTE-PROTO.
Only change that should probably goto the draft is to replace
"Max Link Bw" in formulas by "Max reservable Bw", when user
overrides the maxLinkBw (with a max reservable bw).
Here is how I understand the types of overbookings:-
1. Link size overbooking
-user overrides the 'max link bw' (dictated by
the hardware), with a larger/smaller bandwidth
reservable on the link, be by configuring a
'max reservable bw'.
-no additional multipliers are needed
2. LSP size overbooking
-user reserves more/less amount of BW for the LSP
compared to the actual amount of traffic the LSP
is expected to carry.
-No additional 'multipliers' are needed. The LSP
BW follows the normal BCs based on the CTs
3. per CT overbooking
-user specifies the LOM on a per CT per interface
basis. LSP BW adheres to BCs dictated by the CT it
is associated with
-when user has overridden the 'max link bw' by
configuring a explicit 'max reservable bw', the
user specified value should be used as the upper
limit for the link.
Reserved(CTx) vs Normalized(CTx):
If no LOM is being used, we can assume the LOM to be
1 (100% no over/underbooking). This will allows us
to use Normalized(CTx) in all the formulas (instead
of two sets -one with Reserved and the other with
Normalized).
Thanks,
sanjay