RE: Issue-5: RE: Dropping the Local Overbooking Multiplier (LOM) meth od from D S-TE specs?
"Choudhury, Sanjaya" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.tewg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF8F54BB@whq-msgusr-02.pit.comms.marconi.com> |
Hi Dimitry! > -----Original Message----- > From: Dimitry Haskin [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 11:13 AM > To: 'Choudhury, Sanjaya'; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Issue-5: RE: Dropping the Local Overbooking Multiplier > (LOM) meth od from D S-TE specs? > <snip..> > > > > 2. For a moment let is assume that preemption *is* > > deployed in the domain. Can you explain me how I > > will achieve the following [please be specific in > > what the user will need to do and the BC model in > > use]: > > > > case-1: want to overbook data-traffic without > > overbooking voice traffic. > > > > case-2: Want to overbook the voice traffic by > > 10%, but want to overbook data traffic by 40% > > > > case-3: want to overbook gold-traffic by 10%, > > overbook silver-traffic by 15%, overbook > > normal-traffic by 20% > > What is the catch? Why would not you do just that? I.e., > overbook each CT > independently to their respective designated level. I am still trying to understand _how_ (you propose to overbook each CT independently)? DSTE-PROTO proposes 3 approaches: (i) LSP Size overbooking i.e user specifies a higher/lower bw requirement for the LSP during creation) (ii) Link Size overbooking (user modifies the max_reservable_bw) (iii) LOM Which of these above three approaches, should the administrator use (obviously you are not indicating (iii) ? Or are you proposing to manipulate the BCs (for individual CTs)??? > Or, I supposed, you have missed the aggregate constraint from > you examples > which would make them slightly more illustrative. Not that I > want to help > you to make your case ;) Your help will be appreciated. Thanks, sanjay > <snip..> >