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

"Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.tewg
Message-ID <9473683187ADC049A855ED2DA739ABCA011BE984@KCCLUST06EVS1.ugd.att.com>
All,

I'm not sure where we stand on keeping LOM or dropping LOM.

If we keep LOM, it is possible to re-define LOM so as to simplify the rather complicated 3-way approach to overbooking that now exists:

LSPOMc = LSP overbooking multiplier for CTc
LSOM = link size overbooking multiplier
LOMc = local overbooking multiplier for CTc

If LOM is retained, Wai Sum and I propose to redefine LOM (calling it LOM') to provide an overall simplification of this 3-way overbooking complexity, as follows.

Define:

LSPOMc = LSP overbooking multiplier for CTc
LSOM = link size overbooking multiplier
LSOM = maximum reservable bandwidth/maximum link bandwidth
LOMc = local overbooking multiplier for CTc (original definition of LOMc)
LOM'c = redefined local overbooking multiplier LOMc for CTc
LOM'c = LSOM * LSPOMc * LOMc

Given:
requested LSP CTc = RSVP-TE Tspec LSP bandwidth specified in TLV

Then the following general equation applies:
reserved CTc = requested LSP CTc/LOM'c                       (1)

wherein there are several cases of equation (1) for reserved CTc:

1. Link Size Overbooking only:
    LSPOMc = 1, LOMc = 1, for all c
    LOM'c = LSOM, or equivalently
    reserved CTc = requested LSP CTc/LSOM = requested LSP CTc/LOM'c
2. LSP Size Overbooking only:
    LSOM = 1, LOMc = 1, for all c
    LOM'c = LSPOMc for all c, or equivalently
    reserved CTc = requested LSP CTc/LSPOMc = requested LSP CTc/LOM'c
3. Both Link Size Overbooking and LSP Size Overbooking:
    LOMc = 1, for all c
    LOM'c = LSOM * LSPOMc, or equivalently
    reserved CTc = requested LSP CTc/(LSOM * LSPOMc) = requested LSP CTc/LOM'c
 4. LOM in conjunction with the above cases 1, 2, or 3
    reserved CTc = requested LSP CTc/LOM'c

In this model, the aggregate constraint becomes:

 o SUM (Reserved(CTc)) <= MLBW                               (2)
     for all "c" in the range 0 <= c <= (MaxCT-1)

We believe that this simplification, as summarized in equations (1) and (2) above, is worthwhile if LOM is retained.

Comments welcome.

Thanks,
Jerry & Wai Sum
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.