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

"Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.tewg
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Jerry,

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS [mailto:[email protected]] 
>> Sent: 04 June 2003 01:28
>> To: [email protected]
>> Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; Francois Le Faucheur 
>> (flefauch); Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALABS
>> Subject: RE: Dropping the Local Overbooking Multiplier (LOM) 
>> method from DS-TE specs?
>> 
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> I had proposed earlier:
>> 
>> > Can anyone give a practical example of where LOM is needed? 
>> > Unless we see that, my preference would be to drop it.   
>> 
>> Since posting that, some examples have been given (on the 
>> list and privately) that perhaps illustrate how LOM can be 
>> used in practice.

Hm, I haven't seen a single example. What did I miss?

Sanjaya's message made the point that it is a common requirement to want
to do per-CT overbooking. This is not a justification for LOM as per-CT
overbooking can be done with LSP Size Overbooking.

Did my spam filter inadvertently trashed messages on the list?
Also, it is hard to take into examples communicated privately unless you
can share those with us?

Cheers

Francois
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.