RE: Progressing MAR

["Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <gash@att.com>]

Francois,

> a Service Provider using DS-TE in his network may only have
> DS-TE tunnels for data initially and may only start building voice DS-TE
> tunnels in a second stage as the VoIP load gets to a significant level.
> This may result in many CTO/CT1 tunnels being setup first while CT2
> tunnels only get established after.
... 
> There are other scenarios where a CT may grab more bandwidth than its share
> and then not release it freely.

Your above examples of CT bandwidth allocation don't seem to be based on CT traffic load, or if they are, what are the traffic load assumptions?  Traffic load models are basic to the analysis done on RDM, MAM, and MAR.  You seem to be presenting some very different set of assumptions.

> We should also use the same set of assumptions when assessing properties
> of other models (not just for MAR).

I definitely agree.  These should include traffic load and CT bandwidth allocation/engineering assumptions.  Such assumptions have been included already in the I-Ds presenting BA model analysis.

Thanks,
Jerry