RE: Preemption with MAM RE:

[Dimitry Haskin <dhaskin@axiowave.com>]

Francois,

Regarding the IGP extensions. Would not the Maximum Reservable Link
Bandwidth sub-TLV, that can be advertised in IGP, take care of the
advertising the aggregate constraint? In light of this, it doesn't appear
that any changes to the IGP extensions will be necessary.

Regarding CAC. I believe that the general call admission rule is correctly
reflected in Section 10.3.4 of the draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-03, except
that it should have referred to the Maximum Reservable Link BW not to the
Maximum Link BW sub-TLV.  I agree that formulas in the MAM spec need some
work to reflect the general principals outlined in the diff-te-proto-03.

Regards,
  Dimitry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) [mailto:flefauch@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 6:37 PM
> To: Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALABS; Te-Wg
> Subject: RE: Preemption with MAM RE: 
> 
> 
> Waisum,
> Let me try one more time.
> Adding some implicit bandwidth constraint (or whatever you 
> want to call that) is not a clarification to MAM. It is a 
> different model. 
> - Where MAM currently has a Maximum Number of Bandwidth 
> Constraints of 8 (ie one per CT), this model would have a 
> maximum of 9 BCs (ie one per CT plus one aggregate). BTW, 
> this in turn, would require change to the ISIS/OSPF 
> extensions which can only advertise 8 Bandwidth Constraints.
> - You would have to add a completely new rule to the definition like:
> 	 SUM (Reserved (CTb) ) <= BC9, ( b in the range 0 <= b 
> <= (MaxCT - 1))
> - All the CAC formulas would be different
> Francois
>