RE: Example of LOM usage

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

Dimitry,

>> I understand that a provider may want different per CT 
>> overbooking ratios on
>> different links. However I still fail to understand why LOM would be
>> required to provide a good service in such a configuration. 
>> Can you clarify?
>> 

I believe we have already discuss when LOM is required or not and
concluded on that. Quoting from your message:
>> Francois,
>> 
>> Thanks for your clear explanation. What has escaped me 
>> before is that LOM is
>> useful only for those cases where both of the following must be true:
>> 
>>  1) CTs of the same link have different overbooking ratios.
>>  2) The amount of reservations in one CT must precisely 
>> effect reservable
>> bandwidths in other CTs of the same link.
>> 
>> If I am correct, then it is quite possible to support 
>> different overbooking
>> ratios per CT per link without LOM, provided that 2) is not 
>> required (or at
>> least not with the same level of precision that LOM can provide).
>> 
>> Thanks,
>>  Dimitry

To put the same thing in a different way:
	- if you don't need per-CT-per-link ratios, you do NOT need LOM
	- if you need per-CT-per-Link ratios and can tolerate some
inaccuracy in how a CT affects the global constraints (which I think you
also refer to as allowing some degradation on some CTs in your
discussion with Sanjaya), then you do NOT need LOM.
	- if you need per-CT-per-Link ratios and want accuracy in how a
CT affects the global constraints, then you do need LOM.

So the points I think you're getting at are that:
	1) needing per-CT-per-Link ratios does not always mean you need
LOM
	2) from your experience:
	- most SPs won't need per-CT-per-link ratios
	- the few SPs who may need per-CT-per-link ratios are likely to
tolerate some inaccuracy in bookeeping over the aggregate constraint,
Therefore the case for LOM is very slim.

Right?

Cheers

Francois