|
Necdet,
No, I didn't use the AT&T models, I programmed
it myself.
Annex G notes that the formula over and
underestimates the
real value. I will try to get a better
estimation, and check that
with the simulations.
Regards,
Jon
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 8:24
PM
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] Simulation
results
Jon,
Thank you for the good work. It seems like our formulas in Annex G is off
quite a bit specially for conservative mode. Did you use the models from
AT&T? If there is no modeling error, we need to find out the root cause of
it and modify our formulas.
Thanks.
Necdet
Jon Schuringa wrote:
Yes, it is better to change only one parameter at a time. New
results with fixed 500km ring are here:http://www.ikn.tuwien.ac.at/~nthuma/simRes2.pdf Jon
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 12:10
AM
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] Simulation
results Jon,
Thank you for running these simulations. These are very valuable. The
only think that is not clear to me from the result is whether the buffer
requirement is linearly increased with number of nodes or with the size of
the ring. Can you please run the same simulations for a fixed size ring
say for 500km with varying number of nodes as in your graphs? After that
we can determine whether the number of nodes affect the buffer
requirements or not and based on that we can modify the formulas if
necessary.
Thanks.
Necdet
Jon Schuringa wrote:
Dear all, I finished the simulations about the maximum
stq buffer occupancy withfixed values for stqLowThreshold
and stqHighThreshold andstqFullThreshold set to infinity, as Necdet
proposed. You can get the results here:http://www.ikn.tuwien.ac.at/~nthuma/simRes.pdf
-
Jon
|