[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: IETF54- Informal discussion on BC Model for DS-TE



Dimitry,

>
> My impression is that it is just not possible to simultanesouly :
>          -(i) ensure bandwidth sharing (ie no bandwidth wastage)
>          -(ii) ensure bandwidth isolation (ie a CT cannot have some of
its
> bandwidth taken by another CT)
>          -(iii) refuse to use preemption
>

I respectfully disagree. I believe that (i) and (ii) can be achieved
simultaneously with (iii). Preemption of LSPs at a lower service level
in order to allow LSP calls at a higher service level is not the only
way to achieve (i) and (ii). An alternative would be to allow a
potential service degradation of the already established LSPs at a lower
service level without totally removing (often in an arbitrary way) any
particular LSP from the service. Given my example, the sum of normalized
CT1 and CT0 reservations would be allowed to exceed BC0.
Let's see if I understand exactly what you are proposing. If I understand correctly, you're arguing in favor of the Max Allocation model where you would configure the sum of the constraints much larger than the total capacity.
For example, on a link of 100, you would configure something like:
- Sum (CT0) <= BC0 = 100
- Sum (CT1) <= BC1 = 50
And then you are saying:
- you can always make full use of the link (ie even if there is no CT1 you can setup 100 of CT0)
- you can always achieve 50 worth of CT1 without preemption (even if you have a 100 of CT0, you will accept 50 of CT1 and then CT0 will just get degraded).

Is this right? or are you proposing another BC model and if so can you detail it for us?

Thanks

Francois