Re: [RPRWG] RPR Perf: Single vs. Dual ring?
Hi Stein,
Thank you for the explanation. So, to clarify my understanding, we are using
dual rings for flow control packets that propagate hop-by-hop upstream.
But, wouldn't it make the simulations easier if we could default to a more
generic flow control scheme, like maybe broadcasting the control packets.
This will be a more robust mechanism than hop-by-hop and also eliminate the
necessity of the second ring. The performance characteristics of this scheme
will also give us an insight into the performance tradeoff of this approach
for comparison.
Do you think a scenario on these lines will be interesting?
Thanks,
Samian
-----Original Message-----
From: Stein Gjessing [mailto:steing@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 11:41 PM
To: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [RPRWG] RPR Perf: Single vs. Dual ring?
Samian,
I agree that a single ring will demonstrate the performance characteristics
of interest if we disregard flow control.
Analyzing performance with flow control (by sending flow control
packets upstream), the dual rings are of course necessary.
Then the interference between flow control packets and data packets
also become an interesting issue.
(Also remember that packets are going at most half way around on one ring)
Stein Gjessing
University of Oslo
>Hi Khaled,
>
>I know that the performance adhoc committee decided that the Phase I
>simulations should be done using dual rings. I am beginning to question if
>that is necessary. I think a single ring will demonstrate the performance
>characteristics of interest and save us a lot of run time in running the
>simulations and is much easier to analyze.
>
>Am I missing something?
>
>Samian Kaur
>Lantern Communications