|
Ben,
Good questions. The pacing mechanism in the
objectives could be anything. It could be interpreted as limiting all
flows or it could be interpreted as limiting only specific flows. I
believe the message passing is required. I believe that the MAC Client
should be able to control the pacing mechanism. And, I believe that we can
leave the pacing mechanism open to further refinement by the Task Force. I
will take this as feedback and try to articulate that in the next revision of
the presentation. As for the granularity of the rate limiter, I think that
doesn't need to be an objective. I will add some proposed amendments to
the objectives to show the changes I'd recommend to the
objectives.
Thanks,
Brad
Brad,
Thanks for this presentation.
Perhaps the
presentation lines up well with our objectives.
Slide 5 states that 802.3x
isn't used because it acts on all flows
and removes control from the MAC
Client. Our objectives
suggest a rate limiter, rather than an on/off
switch, in the MAC
Control sublayer. While the rate limiter acts equally on
all flows,
the MAC Client has not lost control. Data still moves so the
MAC
Client can choose which packets to transmit. This results in
the
rate limiter not actually acting on all flows but only those
flows
that the MAC Client chooses to hold off while continuing
to
transmit other flows.
Or...
Perhaps the presentation
doesn't line up well with our objectives
because it suggests that there
should only be a message passing
protocol created with no actual rate
limiting mechanism built into
the link. This provides the MAC Client all
the control so that it
doesn't rely on 802.3 at all, except to actually
exchange the message
using the MA_CONTROL.request primitive in order to
avoid
the data path delays through the upper layers.
Would you mind
letting us know which direction you intended
this presentation to lean? Are
you going to suggest a change to
our objectives or suggest some new ones?
I'd hate to have someone
sign on to this presentation as a supporter
thinking one way and
have others thinking
differently.
Thanks,
Ben
Booth, Bradley wrote:
After some of the discussion on the reflector in
the last couple of days, I decided to toss this presentation together for
the September interim meeting. I'm hoping that this articulates the
issue and the value proposition a little better. Feedback and support
is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Brad
<<booth_1_0904_r0.2.ppt>>
--
-----------------------------------------
Benjamin Brown
178 Bear Hill Road
Chichester, NH 03258
603-491-0296 - Cell
603-798-4115 - Office
benjamin-dot-brown-at-ieee-dot-org
(Will this cut down on my spam???)
-----------------------------------------
|