My understanding of the cut-through definition in
Sanjay's example is
1. Pass-through packet is allowed to
transmit before it is completely received.
2. There is only one transit buffer
(regardless of class).
3. Scheduling Algorithm always give
pass-through traffic (regardlesss of class)
preference
over add-on traffic.
which somewhat contradicts with his first statement.
Thus the interesting results.
The debate should be based on a solid definition of
cut-through transmission, otherwise
there will be no convergence at the end of the
discussion.
I fully agree Sanjay's first statement, but want to add
that each class should have its
own transit buffer, (personally I prefer having 3
classes supported as RPR MAC services).
Whether each transit buffer should reside in MAC layer
or systemlayer is up to further
discussion. Under this context, Circuit Emulation (or
some may prefer to call it
Synchronous) class will benefit from the cut-through
transit. Ideally it could further
benefit from preemptive transmission (yet another
definition to be solidly defined).
William Dai
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001
11:15 AM
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] MAC
Question
Hi Ajay,
Latency and jitter requirements depend on the class of
traffic. For some type (class) of services it is critical for others it
is not.
Counter intuitive as it is, actually, store and for
forward is less end-to-end latency than cut through.
In cut through approach, high add priority traffic waits
while pass low priority upstream traffic passes through. It takes two
RTT to shut up the low priority traffic through BCN. Thus high priority
waits 2RTT because of the low priority stream. In this case low priority
pass streams impose 2RTT latency or jitter to add high priority stream.
For 200km ring that is 2ms. For 200km it is 20ms.
Total end to end latency = add latency + N*pass
latency
In cut through end to end latency = 2RTT
+ N* packet delay at link speed
In the store and forward approach, if pass traffic is
low priority it waits in the buffer while pass high priority and local
high pririty get to go in that order. Thus, max jitter or latency
imposed on high priority traffic is at worst imposed by high priority
stream. Since high priority traffic streams are committed services, they
never over subscribe the link only low priority streams do.
In store and forward end to end latency = pass hi
priority burst + N* packet delay at link speed.
Pass hi priority burst = At 10gig speeds depending on
the hi prority provisioning levels.
typically in the
order of microseconds
store and forward gives clear class based seperation. It
provides no latency panelties on committed high priority streams
(typically voice and video) due to overcommitted low priority streams
(typically data).
There is no RTT dependence here which can be .1msec at
20km to 10msec at 2000km
-Sanjay K. Agrawal
Luminous
networks
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Ajay Sahai
>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 6:34 AM
> To:
Ray Zeisz
> Cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [RPRWG] MAC Question
>
>
>
Ray:
>
> I guess
the answer is that the group is still debating this issue. Some
> vendors prefer to have a largish transit buffer
where transit frames
> are stored. Others are
proposing "cut through" transit functionality.
>
> I personally feel that latency
will be larger in the first approach.
>
> On another note I do not
believe that the similarity with 802.5 is
>
on the lines of claiming a token etc. etc. The MAC mechanism
> is going to be different.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Ajay Sahai
>
> Ray Zeisz
wrote:
>
> > I
am following the .17 group from afar, but I have a question:
> >
> > Is it
acceptable for each node in the ring to buffer up an entire
packet
> > before forwarding it to its
neighbor? Would the latency be to
>
great if this
> > were done? Or is
the .17 direction more along the lines of
>
802.5 where only
> > a few bits in each
ring node are buffered...just enough to
>
detect a token
> > and set a bit to claim
it.
> >
> >
Ray
> >
> >
Ray Zeisz
> > Technology Advisor
> > LVL7 Systems
>
> http://www.LVL7.com
> >
(919) 865-2735
>