Re: Some comments on the draft of 3448/TFRC.bis (Feb 2007)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



|  Gerrit -
|  
|  > Fix:
|  > ----
|  >  Avoid any backlog of sending time which is greater than one whole 
|  > t_ipi. This
|  >  permits the coarse-granularity bursts mentioned in [RFC 3448, 4.6], 
|  > but disallows
|  >  the disproportionally large bursts.
|  
|  Gerrit -
|  
|  I have revised draft-ietf-dccp-rfc3448bis-02b.txt
|  ("http://www.icir.org/floyd/papers/draft-ietf-dccp-rfc3448bis-02b.txt";)
|  to say the following:
|  
|      However, the TFRC sender is not allowed to accumulate
|       `credits' of more than max(t_ipi, t_gran) time units in packet
|       scheduling, so the sender is not allowed to send arbitrary bursts of
|       packets after idle periods.
|  
|  If you could read Section 4.7 on "Scheduling of Packet Transmissions"
|  and see what you think, that would be great.
|  
|  Take care,
|  - Sally
|  http://www.icir.org/floyd/
Idle periods are not the only possible cause; timing inaccuracies and slow sending
rate achieve the same effect over time.
Using max(t_ipi, t_gran) allows large bursts again. On Gigabit networks,
t_ipi = 100 usec (or less) is not unusual. If t_gran = 10ms, then send credit
builds up until t_gran is reached, which means that the sender can always send bursts
of up to 100 packets or more (t_gran/t_ipi) at once.


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Linux DCCP]     [IETF Annouce]     [Linux Networking]     [Git]     [Security]     [Linux Assembly]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [DDR & Rambus]

  Powered by Linux