Re: [RPRWG] maint. request 47 - discussion ?

[J Lemon <jlemon@xxxxxxxx>]

Mohit,

The proposed remedy was provided in a separate file (since it didn't fit in the space provided in the form). There is a link to the additional file from the Detailed History view. [Note that several MRs have additional files associated with them, all linked from the Detailed History view.]

The only discussion so far was that people wanted to consult offline before making a decision, hence the status of T.

Your suggestion below appears to address conservative mode, whereas this is for aggressive mode.

jl

-----Original Message-----
From: Mohit Sood [mailto:msood@UNITY.NCSU.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 7:18 AM
To: STDS-802-17@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [RPRWG] maint. request 47 - discussion ?


Hi,

Maintenance request no. 47, states - "In the case of the aggressive
fairness method, a station may become the head of a congestion domain
based solely on the rate of transiting non-reserved traffic, even when the
local station is not adding fairness-eligible traffic or when transiting
fairness-eligible traffic is sufficient to exceed the rateLowThreshold
without the contribution of the local station. In such cases, add rates
within the congestion domain are unnecessarily (and repeatedly) throttled
to a small value, significantly reducing ring utilization."

No remedy has been provided by the person who has submitted this
maintenance. I wondering if there has been a discussion about the problem
mentioned. How about if /localFairRate /is set to /(lpAddRate +
lpFwRate)/2 /when /activeWeightsDetection /is disabled and /(lpAddRate +
lpFwRate) * (localWeight /activeWeights)/ when /activeWeightsDetection /is
enabled?

Mohit Sood
Grad Student (Dr. Viniotis)
NC State University