RE: Dropping the Local Overbooking Multiplier (LOM) method from DS-TE specs?

Francois,

I would also think LOM adds extra complexity for a little gain. So,
you may want to avoid LOM in DS-TE spec for now. Its usefulness
can be evaluated in the future as we gain experience with DS-TE.

Thanks,
Siva

At 02:05 PM 5/26/2003 +0100, Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) wrote:
>All TEWGers,
>
>Thoughts on dropping/keeping LOM in base DS-TE specs?
>
>Thanks
>
>Francois
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)
> >> Sent: 26 May 2003 14:59
> >> To: Kireeti Kompella; [email protected]
> >> Subject: Dropping the Local Overbooking Multiplier (LOM)
> >> method from DS-TE specs?
> >>
> >>
> >> Kireeti,
> >>
> >> Once upon a time, we merged 3 technical proposals for DS-TE (one of
> >> which was yours) into a common one. One of the capabilities that was
> >> unique to your proposal was the ability to support overbooking ratios
> >> which are different on a per CT AND per link basis (while the other
> >> methods supported different ratios on different links and different
> >> ratios on a per CT basis, not not on a per CT and per-link
> >> basis). Back
> >> then you made a argument that there was some value in allowing this.
> >> This resulted in the addition of the optional Local Overbooking
> >> Multiplier (LOM) method in the DS-TE specs.
> >>
> >> A number of people commented that considering the ratio of
> >> complexity vs
> >> functionality for this particular capability, we may be better off
> >> issueing the base DS-TE specs without this for now and then add this
> >> capability later or in a separate document. I personnally also favors
> >> such an approach.
> >>
> >> What is your take on this?
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Francois
> >>
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Jim Boyle [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> >> Sent: 24 May 2003 02:31
> >> >> To: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)
> >> >> Cc: [email protected]; Lai, Wai S , ALABS
> >> >> Subject: RE: Reflecting new-MAM/SAM definition in diff-te drafts
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> <clip>
> >> >>
> >> >> btw... I also think LOMs are lots of complexity for little gain :)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 20 May 2003, Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Jerry,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> > >> From: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> >> > >> Sent: 20 May 2003 17:35
> >> >> > >> To: Dimitry Haskin; Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)
> >> >> > >> Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; [email protected]; Lai,
> >> >> > >> Wai S (Waisum), ALABS
> >> >> > >> Subject: RE: Reflecting new-MAM/SAM definition in
> >> diff-te drafts
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Dimitry, Francois,
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> > >     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.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Are you then proposing these formulas:
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> 1. When per-CT LOMs are not used:
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>      o SUM (Reserved(CTc)) <= Max Reservable Bandwidth,
> >> >> > >>          for all "c" in the range 0 <= c <= (MaxCT-1)
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> 2. When per-CT LOMs are used:
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>      o SUM (Normalized(CTc)) <= Max Reservable Bandwidth,
> >> >> > >>          for all "c" in the range 0 <= c <= (MaxCT-1)
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Is that correct?  Please confirm, and/or give the formulas
> >> >> > >> you propose.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes, this is exactly what I propose.
> >> >> > I think this is similar to what you were proposing, only
> >> >> using "Max Res
> >> >> > Bw" instead of "Max Link Bw".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sorry I didn't make that very clear before.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Cheers
> >> >> >
> >> >> > FRancois
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Thanks,
> >> >> > >> Jerry
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>