Re: [RPRWG] More comments on preemption
Kanaiya,
There has been a lot of discussion regarding preemption in the
"Cut through Definition ?" email thread a while ago.
Let me just recapture what I proposed in that thread for your
reference (with minor corrections and additions). It may contradict
with the proposed GFP packet encapsulation requirement, but hope
it is enough to correct your misconception about preemption.
1. There are 3 MAC level classes of traffic (H, M, L,). H and M traffic
insertion is subjuct to self policing according to their respectively
provisioned rate, while L traffic insertion is subject to the "Fairness"
ring access algorithm only.
2. Preemption is allowed only for H traffic to preempt M or L traffic,
3. Each M and L packet transfer will be inserted an "IDLE/Escape"
word for every 256 byte (for the sake of alignment/padding concern)
as the preemptive insertion point.
4. Preemptive insertion is allowed only at the preemptive insertion
point of onging M or L traffic.
5. Preempted "Leftover" traffic will be scheduled to transfer right
after the H traffic is transferred, regardless of classes, and it could
be subject to further preemption when new H traffic arrives.
6. M and L traffic are allowed to do store&forward (packet-wise)
transit on the ring (to reduce the complexity of reassembly task at
the final receiver), while H traffic is allowed to do both cut-through
and store&forward transit on the ring.
7. Jumbo frame is not supported for H class.
All conditions need to apply at the same time.
Regards
William Dai
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kanaiya Vasani" <kanaiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 11:07 AM
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] More comments on preemption
>
> William,
>
> Maybe you can further elaborate on this. What happens to the pre-empted
> packet(frame)? How do we deal with the portion of the packet(frame)that is
> already transmitted?
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Kanaiya
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Dai [mailto:wdai@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 2:34 PM
> To: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [RPRWG] More comments on preemption
>
>
>
> Preemption does NOT drop packets.
>
> William Dai (minority member)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kanaiya Vasani" <kanaiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 1:40 PM
> Subject: RE: [RPRWG] More comments on preemption
>
>
> >
> > There has been some good discussion around the subject of preemption.
> Looks
> > like a majority of the active members on the reflector would prefer to
> leave
> > it out.
> >
> > I too believe that there shouldn't be any preemption within the MAC for
> the
> > following reasons:
> >
> > 1. The RPR MAC shall be defined with a set of transmission performance
> > specifications - worst case packet delay, packet jitter tolerance,
packet
> > loss, etc. - similar to other transmission and transport technologies.
In
> > this context, the MAC packet loss shall be zero under normal conditions.
> > Pre-emption results in dropping of frames, and therefore should not be a
> > function of the MAC.
> >
> > 2. Packet loss is also an important component of a service level
> agreement.
> > Service providers obviously want packet loss to be as close to zero as
> > possible, and the MAC must do its part to help the overall system
achieve
> > this objective. Dropping packets or causing CRC errors to support
> > pre-emption is not desirable.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > - Kanaiya
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Leon Bruckman [mailto:leonb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 10:15 AM
> > To: 'William Dai'; stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [RPRWG] More comments on preemption
> >
> >
> >
> > William,
> > You are right that the additional delay variation added by each
additional
> > node becomes lower as the number of nodes already taken into
consideration
> > increases. But the maximum delay variation will not decrease as the
number
> > of nodes increases.
> > So the simulation shows the limit to the delay variation, under the
noted
> > assumptions.
> > You already corrected your second observation, so I understand it is OK.
> > Leon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William Dai [mailto:wdai@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 9:18 PM
> > To: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [RPRWG] More comments on preemption
> >
> >
> >
> > Leon,
> >
> > Simulation may or may not catch the worst case situation. There are 128
> > nodes in your simulation model, the sheer number of nodes which makes
> > it look like the "toughest" you can get. While I believe it is good to
> > evaluate
> > the delay, but it make the jitter evaluation more difficult. Why ?
because
> > the
> > the probability of getting minimum delay (packet pass through 127 nodes
> > without being blocked by Jumbo frame insertion) and the probability of
> > getting maximum delay (packet pass through 127 nodes and being blocked
> > by Jumbo frame insertion at every node) diminish quickly as the number
of
> > nodes increases.
> >
> > Secondly, assume we're comparing a 100Mbps traffic flow going through
> > 1G ring vs. 10G ring with the same number of nodes and same traffic
> > generation models, AND on the other end of the anti-jitter buffer,
traffic
> > will be extracted out at 100Mbps for the same flow. In theory, the size
> > of the anti-jitter buffer and the delay caused by the anti-buffer should
> be
> > the SAME. It should not be a surprise because 10G ring is only 10 times
> > wider than 1G ring, not 10 times faster for the 100Mbps traffic flow.
> >
> > I'm not a simulation believer (although I used to be in that field), but
I
> > do
> > respect those people who is doing that. It is just a tool used by
PEOPLE.
> >
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > William Dai
> >
>
>