RE: Dropping the Local Overbooking Multiplier (LOM) method from DS-TE specs?

["Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <flefauch@cisco.com>]

Jerry,

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS [mailto:gash@att.com] 
>> Sent: 04 June 2003 01:28
>> To: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
>> Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; Francois Le Faucheur 
>> (flefauch); Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALABS
>> Subject: RE: Dropping the Local Overbooking Multiplier (LOM) 
>> method from DS-TE specs?
>> 
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> I had proposed earlier:
>> 
>> > Can anyone give a practical example of where LOM is needed? 
>> > Unless we see that, my preference would be to drop it.   
>> 
>> Since posting that, some examples have been given (on the 
>> list and privately) that perhaps illustrate how LOM can be 
>> used in practice.

Hm, I haven't seen a single example. What did I miss?

Sanjaya's message made the point that it is a common requirement to want
to do per-CT overbooking. This is not a justification for LOM as per-CT
overbooking can be done with LSP Size Overbooking.

Did my spam filter inadvertently trashed messages on the list?
Also, it is hard to take into examples communicated privately unless you
can share those with us?

Cheers

Francois