RE: [Diffserv] Modeling of Policing component.

Tom Scott <telecomtom@vedatel.com> Wed, 03 July 2002 02:20 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA28883 for <diffserv-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 22:20:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id WAA10363 for diffserv-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 22:21:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA09871; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 22:12:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA21754 for <diffserv@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:15:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from gemini.dacor.net (gemini.dacor.net [63.174.195.21]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12997 for <diffserv@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:14:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from vedatel.com (adsl-77.dacor.net [207.40.20.77]) by dacor.net (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.4) with ESMTP id <B0000493511@gemini.dacor.net> for <diffserv@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:15:19 -0400
Message-ID: <3D220A3E.80206@vedatel.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:17:02 -0400
From: Tom Scott <telecomtom@vedatel.com>
Organization: Vedatel
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020406 Netscape6/6.2.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: diffserv@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Diffserv] Modeling of Policing component.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: diffserv-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: diffserv-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Diffserv Discussion List <diffserv.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: diffserv@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"sqreeek" (that's the sound of the opening of a can of worms): Would
you consider evolving the informal model of RFC 3290 into a more
formal calculus, where such issues as Meter -> AbsoluteDropper and
AlgorithmicDropper -> Scheduler might be derived from first
principles? FSMs are already used in RFCs, so maybe it wouldn't be
such a jump to ASMs? You've already established four categories of
basic functions and indicated a rule for constructing arbitrarily
complex TCBs from the elements. Why drop the analysis at that point?

-- TT

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Diffserv] Modeling of Policing component.
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:28:29 -0700
From: "Andrew Smith" <ah_smith@acm.org>
To: "'ravikumarb'" <ravikumarb@infosys.com>
CC: <diffserv@ietf.org>

I disagree: if you follow an Algorithmic Dropper by a Scheduler (there's
an implied Queue in there somewhere), when the Queue starts to get full
due to "excess" traffic (arrival - departure > 0 over appropriate time
intervals), the Dropper will kick in. That is "policing" (it's doing
shaping at the same time of course).

Meter->AbsoluteDropper is the more conventional way to think about
policing, I agree, but AlgorithmicDropper->Scheduler is also valid.

Andrew Smith


-----Original Message-----
From: diffserv-admin@ietf.org [mailto:diffserv-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of ravikumarb
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 6:49 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: diffserv@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Diffserv] Modeling of Policing component.
...
We can have an Algorithmic Dropper as part of Policer, but not a
Scheduler. The moment we have a Scheduler, what we are doing is Shaping
not policing.



_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
diffserv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html





_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
diffserv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html