RE: [RPRWG] Some questions about the pseudo-code in Gandalf
And a couple more...
- allow_rate is used, but never been shown to be computed.
Did you mean to use allow_rate_congestion?
- lp_allow is computed but never used. Is something missing?
Apologies for sending these piece by piece but
that's how I found them while trying to understand the
nitty gritty of the algorithm. I think I'm done for now :-)
Thanks,
-Anoop
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anoop Ghanwani [mailto:anoop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 5:00 PM
> To: 'stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx '
> Subject: RE: [RPRWG] Some questions about the pseudo-code in Gandalf
>
>
>
>
> While I'm at it, I might as well request a couple of more
> comments and points of clarification:
>
> - What's the rationale for:
> if (recd_rate != NULL_RCVD_INFO) &&
> (lp_forward_rate > (allow_rate_congestion/WEIGHT))
> in order to determine whether to send a rev_rate?
>
> - The pseudo-code does not appear to account for virtual
> output queueing support within the MAC client.
>
> Thanks,
> -Anoop
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anoop Ghanwani [mailto:anoop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 5:05 PM
> > To: 'stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx '
> > Subject: [RPRWG] Some questions about the pseudo-code in Gandalf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I had some questions/clarifications and comments about
> > the pseudo-code in the Gandalf proposal. The version
> > that I've been working with is the November one. If
> > they've been fixed in the more recent one, just let
> > me know.
> >
> > - First off, it seems that the pseudo-code does not handle
> > the multi-choke point feature discussed in the proposal.
> > It would be nice to see this.
> >
> > - When a fairness packet is received, there's some
> > code that says:
> > if (fairness_pkt.SA == my_SA) &&
> > ((node_state == wrapped)) {
> > ..
> > } else {
> > ..
> > }
> > Should we also be checking the RING ID in the fairness
> > packet? Or is it proposing that we don't do any
> > bandwidth management when the ring wraps?
> >
> > - There's some code that sets my_rate_ok = TRUE. How
> > does my_rate_ok get set to FALSE? Maybe just the else
> > clause missing in that statement?
> >
> > - Can one of the authors comment on the tolerance
> > of the scheme to message loss? The fairness message is
> > being sent hop-by-hop, and it seems like if it happens
> > to get lost, those that don't see it will continue
> > to increase their rates. If that is indeed the case,
> > I think something needs to be done about robustness.
> >
> > - What is the significance of the parameter AGECOEFF
> > and how does one determine what is a good value to
> > use for it?
> >
> > -Anoop
> >
> >
> >
> >
>