RE: link capacity and reservable

Francois,

> My point below was about enforcing overbooking ratios on a
> per-CT-and-per-link basis (ie CT0 is overbooked by factor 2 on link 0
> and overbooked by factor 3 on link 1, while CT1 is not overbooked on
> link0 nor on link1). This could NOT be achieved just by combination of
> "LSP Size overbooking" and "Link Size Overbooking"; it could only be
> achieved via the use of the LOM method. But, as being discussed, it is
> not obvious that the nbeed for this justifies the extra complexity.
>

For my sake.. Since b/w constrains are advertised and handled per CT per TE
link (i.e. there are separate BCn values on each visible link in a TE
domain), why is LOM necessary to achieve overbooking per  CT per link?  Or
is it that link0 and link1 in your example form a some kind link bundle, i.e
form a single TE link as far as OSPF/ISIS TE extensions are concerned?

Thanks,
 Dimitry