RE: Reflecting new-MAM/SAM definition in diff-te drafts

["sanford goldfless" <sandy9@rcn.com>]

Francois,

At this time, could you please clear up one point regarding overbooking
with RDM?

Max Reservable is now back as the  choice for the parameter indicating
the aggregate overbooking factor.  You also show nicely that it can
indeed be used in a CAC rule together with per-CT LOMs, by normalizing
the per-CT reservations and then comparing to Max Reservable.  A setting
of Max Reservable could be used to enforce a lower aggregate reservation
amount than the sum of the normalized per-TE-Class advertisements of
Unreserved would. 

So, therefore, doesn't the semantic of this parameter and that of BCO
now need to be kept distinct?  I say this because it was my
understanding that the advertised  bw constraints would not be adjusted
for link overbooking.  Or is this not right, and the BCs themselves in
RDM must somehow be adjusted for overbooking?

Thanks,
Sandy Goldfless  

Sanford Goldfless
192 Fuller St
Brookline MA 02446
617-738-1754
sandy9@rcn.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-te-wg@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-te-wg@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 12:32 PM
To: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS
Cc: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Reflecting new-MAM/SAM definition in diff-te drafts

Jerry,

>> 
>> Yes, we need a formula to make explicit the 'implicit' 
>> constraint (and for all the BC models, not just MAM).
>> 

That's a good point.

With RDM, the proposed formula of:
>>      o SUM (Normalized(CTc)) <= Max Reservable Bandwidth, 
>>          for all "c" in the range 0 <= c <= (MaxCT-1)

already applies, since we have:
	- SUM (Normalised(CTc)) <= BC0, and
	- BC0=Max Reservable Bw

It would be nice to have exact same formula also apply to MAM.

Cheers

Francois