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

Sanjay,

I don't think there has been any attempt to change the per-CT overbooking
requirement. Indeed this requirement shell be supported.  I don't think
dropping LOM from the base protocol extensions draft would alter the DSTE
requirements as currently specified.

Dimitry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Choudhury, Sanjaya [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 10:35 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Dropping the Local Overbooking Multiplier (LOM) 
> method from
> D S-TE specs?
> 
> 
> Hi! DSTE-REQ already states that the per-CT overbooking
> is an optional feature and does not require the vendors
> to implement it.
> 
> We already discussed the overbooking/underbooking issues
> quite some time back. I don't think we, should change
> requirement [DSTE-REQ] at this stage (past last call),
> unless there is a real problem or limitation.
> 
> If we are trying to change the requirement because the 
> LOM concept is difficult, let's take steps to clarify
> the concept by necessary editorial changes (and examples).
> 
> Thanks,
> sanjay
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 9:05 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: Dropping the Local Overbooking Multiplier (LOM) 
> > method from
> > DS-TE specs?
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > >> >> > >> 
> > >> >> > 
> > >> >> > 
> > >> >> > 
> > >> >> > 
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > 
>