|
Benjamin,
Slide
number 3: Is congestion is only caused due to oversubscription? In the
case of a aggregated uplink that is true, however congestion may arise from
various causes i.g. Head of Line blocking, on a downstream link, or link
that maybe down etc...a queue may get congestion due to HOL
etc...
Please
see modified wording on the slide
Slide 6: Congestion Management may not neccessarily
improve latency. Example: Congestion Management implies congestion
avoidance , i.e. that you could be done by rate limiting at the upstream node or
holding off sending data (Pausing). IN either case that some of the packet will
be delayed , so it does not neccessarily improve latency but improves throughput
for packet that enter the network, because once congestion avoidance
mechanisms are triggered we should not see TCP-IP retries , which slows
down a system considerably.
regards
Asif Hazarika
Senior System Architect
Network Solutions,
Fujitsu ME
1250 E Arques Ave Sunnyvale
CA 94088-3470
Phone:
408-737-5640
email: ahazarik@fma.fujitsu.com
-----Original Message-----
From:
Benjamin Brown [mailto:benjbrown@COMCAST.NET]
Sent: Friday, September
24, 2004 6:08 AM
To:
STDS-802-3-CM@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [8023-CMSG] PAR
proposal
Jose,
Thanks for your
contribution of actual wording. I've modified the PAR
slides again to
include the suggested changes.
All,
I've also included some
suggested word changes (in red) as proposed
by Gary McAlpine that I missed
earlier this morning. Please continue
your
review.
Thanks,
Ben
Jose Morales wrote:
Ben,
I have explained my opinion in my previous mail. According it, this is
my proposal for wording changes:
>> To improve the performance of an 802.3 link in terms of latency
and frame discard
>> in the presence of congestion.
>> Congestion due to oversubscription results in frame discards.
This project will
>> enable an exchange of congestion control
information, which will define a means
>> of decreasing frame
discard and permit decreased latency.
I propose:
"To improve the performance of an 802.3 link in terms of latency and
frame discard in order to avoid congestion.
In case that the congestión appears, this project will enable an exchange
of congestion control information, which will define a means of decreasing
frame flow and permit decreased latency."
In my experience, I think tat avoid congestion must be the main
objective. According my idea, 802.3 must detect the traffic situation an
will use 802.2 to control it.
Thanks
Jose
Benjamin Brown wrote:
All,
Thanks to those who responded, especially those with actual
wording
changes. I've captured the new wording in additional
slides so
everyone can see them in a common format. If there
are additional
comments, please feel free to make them. We'll
need to choose between
these, probably on Tuesday of next
week, in order to allow this
project to move forward.
Thanks,
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-cm@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-cm@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin
Brown
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 7:36 AM
To: STDS-802-3-CM@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [8023-CMSG] PAR proposal
Brad, Gadi, Matt, Asif,
Thanks for your review. I've captured Brad's suggested changes
in the first 4 slides of the new attached proposal. I then added a
5th slide which is a markup of the 4th with my changes in response
to some of Matt's comments. If everyone could take another look
at this and let me know what they think of the new document, the
proposed changes or anything else they can think of, I'd very much
appreciate it.
Regards,
Ben
Booth, Bradley wrote:
Ben and all,
Some feedback on this.
Cheers,
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-cm@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-cm@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin
Brown
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 4:03 AM
To: STDS-802-3-CM@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [8023-CMSG] PAR proposal
All,
This is not a full cut at the PAR but covers the more interesting
pieces - Title, Scope, and Purpose. Please review and comment.
Again, this, or something similar, needs to be approved in Ottawa
next week in order to pre-circulate for approval at the WG level
in San Antonio in November. Please give this serious attention
and comment with actual suggested changes.
Thanks,
Ben
--
-----------------------------------------
Benjamin Brown
178 Bear Hill Road
Chichester, NH 03258
603-491-0296 - Cell
603-798-4115 - Office
benjamin-dot-brown-at-ieee-dot-org
(Will this cut down on my spam???)
-----------------------------------------
--
-----------------------------------------
Benjamin Brown
178 Bear Hill Road
Chichester, NH 03258
603-491-0296 - Cell
603-798-4115 - Office
benjamin-dot-brown-at-ieee-dot-org
(Will this cut down on my spam???)
-----------------------------------------
--
-----------------------------------------
Benjamin Brown
178 Bear Hill Road
Chichester, NH 03258
603-491-0296 - Cell
603-798-4115 - Office
benjamin-dot-brown-at-ieee-dot-org
(Will this cut down on my spam???)
-----------------------------------------
--
-----------------------------------------
Benjamin Brown
178 Bear Hill Road
Chichester, NH 03258
603-491-0296 - Cell
603-798-4115 - Office
benjamin-dot-brown-at-ieee-dot-org
(Will this cut down on my spam???)
-----------------------------------------
|