| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear Siamack
It would be necessary to back off your statements on the merits and
performance of Open Loop with simulations. The goal of MAC protocols
is also to achieve fairness among iinterfering nodes, not merely
congestion
control.
The first two statements on CA mechanisms is certainly not true at
all.
We will show that by two protocols having different degrees of
sophistication.
Seems to become an interesting and lively September meeting in San
Jose.
Best regards
Harmen
------------------------------------------------------------------ Prof.Dr. Harmen R. van As Institute of Communication Networks Head of Institute Vienna University of Technology Tel +43-1-58801-38800 Favoritenstrasse 9/388 Fax +43-1-58801-38898 A-1040 Vienna, Austria http://www.ikn.tuwien.ac.at email: Harmen.R.van-As@xxxxxxxxxxxx ------------------------------------------------------------------ ORIGINAL MESSAGE
To: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [RPRWG] Merits of Open Loop From: Siamack Ayandeh <sayandeh@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 11:01:39 -0400 CC: sayandeh@xxxxxxxxxx Sender: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Folks, As some people are busy doing simulations and writing proposals for
the
San Jose meeting, I am posting this presentation early on the reflector. It describes the merits of open loop congestion controls and may impact some of the simulation scenarios that would be presented. The main conclusions of the document are that: - Congestion avoidance algorithms may lead to static partitioning of
the
ring bandwidth between high and low priority traffic - With CA it may not be possible to bound the ring access delay of high priority traffic - Open loop does not suffer from HOL blocking - Open loop has relatively low configuration and operational complexity - Open loop is not prone to tuning issues, or link aggregation, etc... Regards, Siamack
|