| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
I think I'd prefer to have a pacing mechanism either in the MAC or in the MAC Client. This would keep the rate control at a higher layer in the stack, and also keep it located with the current rate control function. The MAC already performs a rate control by inserting IPG between packets. A pacing mechanism could be added to this IPG insertion, which would result in a change in the standard. Or, the pacing mechanism could be implemented in the MAC Client (Ariel Hendel's proposal), which would not result in a change to the standard other than maybe an addition of an informative annex.
This would eliminate the need for the HOLD signal, and leave the pacing mechanism (and its granularity) up to the implementer. J
Thanks,
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: pbottorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [SMTP:pbottorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 12:17 PM
To: Booth, Brad; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Proposal for accomodating 10.0000 and 9.58464 line rates
Brad, Dan:
I agree with Dan. The HOLD solution is the simplest and most general. If the PHY doesn't rate control the MAC then the MAC will need a pacing mechanism.
Paul