Re: [RE] CE applications (was: RE: [RE] Focus of discussions)
Michael, I think you are correct also. Additional forwarding hops requires
additional buffering.
The next question is, is this a practical consideration for the home where
we might assume a limited number of hops and relatively relaxed latency
requirements?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG] On
Behalf Of Michael D. Johas Teener
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 10:43 AM
To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [RE] CE applications (was: RE: [RE] Focus of discussions)
I think you are correct, Kevin, with one major concern: using strict
priority mechanisms through multiple queues (transmitter, bridge, [more
bridges/routers], receiver), the high priority packets tend to bunch up and
arrive in bursts that will require bigger buffers at the receiver.
There are simple fixes to all this however, providing that there is a
"network"-wide synchronization mechanism. (where "network" means the cloud
of interconnected devices that can share the synchronization method.)
On 9/1/04 8:54 AM, "Gross, Kevin" <kevin.gross@CIRRUS.COM> wrote:
> Isn't this scenario addressed by 802.1Q? 802.1Q is implemented in switches
> but also in the network stacks of end stations. The file copy would be
> assigned a lower priority and the network stack in device A would
recognize
> this and queue packets for transmission from the streams ahead of the file
> copy transmissions.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael D. Johas Teener - Mike@Teener.com PGP ID 0x3179D202
23 Acacia Way, Santa Cruz, CA 95062-1313
+1-831-247-9666, fax +1-831-480-5845
------------------- www.teener.com ------------------------