Re: [manet] undirectional or bidirectional (Was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-00.txt)

Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Wed, 15 February 2017 07:05 UTC

Return-Path: <hrogge@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 461671294DA for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 23:05:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nt0ws2ITHtB7 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 23:05:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x234.google.com (mail-qt0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9BEA1294CD for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 23:05:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x234.google.com with SMTP id v23so130283593qtb.0 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 23:05:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hkgfq0hdoO2F79psxyhw2loQ/STll3fiq2YszgU4oms=; b=ENcf1TxLpzCWLjARjmrpqsBcglT6B2bEeaw4tQHTjwNLFOow02CpuZkZ3d7gwPmyZz ex2nUZLD5QqUGhaIrr09FmP+ReskqUygEhGdQZ6h8Bu1G6n5AyFhI+pyU443NVJfV6fg Ag/3K/LqKnrjo/DUVczv3P1tE+WIQ1OhK1rw45q0HdnLB9K4tryGFW4g5ojTfPx5uTnO lk2pPgIemlz8sOXFrB1e7rYk1Ra9+6ILFNXW09f3K4T+waCQouYdWHjnv5vrmjUr/4VQ rY16v4U62L7uauZHp3bEU2kNHFd1JKiyTUbHzSFUd3NOaG8nJmwOA8LnY3D5UTsHhaaB wHOA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hkgfq0hdoO2F79psxyhw2loQ/STll3fiq2YszgU4oms=; b=roy8XX59/fMb5eFrGPVJUwoRAHkFzMFxqZ5engCvNcedMooYTaQYpBvjkmH1CMwBJ2 YYSZoa81ASFzXoYZJazq3aAYmP3FSt4S0IGEA1EwIpOS+uW/3Xi4w7pcMypPIbn3UZZb HwRD97aYfzMNtE92qnFkQAepm5bKvHFIezl4mrXr7uFyG3mNA6oJggA3vgizgzotAZqX rVT6tG7gwqEyCGZkgcpyBpHJPq707i2zGL5BzWbhEZZRD37NtveTPVzPOEuDV1YASV0m IFkSB16Y8VNJxKpRYxJlk+ySmGyMR6i5N8ey16EXHV35sgHP/I4gY51RhSYxncknTlE5 i/rQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mzKaH26vefddxbuZEtmQ6pW+6Zpswobzll0630kNBa4KOt2CGGg8NWCeSO40IDpGLz2+amj/CVVHh2Sg==
X-Received: by 10.237.54.1 with SMTP id e1mr29998869qtb.68.1487142303977; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 23:05:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.35.228 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 23:04:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAH8Jh6Bg=7qU3-BzFZc4DnDhgo6n9UAZ2phowQYKRe_QTs_HmQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH8Jh6Bg=7qU3-BzFZc4DnDhgo6n9UAZ2phowQYKRe_QTs_HmQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 08:04:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGnRvuqCCw7fNFcwOy9ZuQA3_k4SHK=NgK=KmV7EKwoomjc7BQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "James A. (Jim) Stevens" <james.a.stevens@rockwellcollins.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/wZrYOjJ6kMsGDzvsuboknKhKseI>
Cc: "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] undirectional or bidirectional (Was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-00.txt)
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 07:05:06 -0000

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:28 AM, James A. (Jim) Stevens
<james.a.stevens@rockwellcollins.com> wrote:
> Henning, I think I understand and agree with everything you wrote, but not
> absolutely sure, so want to double check.

*sigh* you are right, I should have been more specific.

Flow control of "user data moving from router to radio" is most
important to move the bottleneck from the interface specific radio to
the generic router.

Henning

> In your second paragraph, when you say that '"flow control from the router
> towards the radio is THE most important part, it is practically necessary
> for all radios if you want to do some kind of Priorization on the router
> "
>
> I can read the phrase "flow control from the router towards the radio" two
> ways.
>
> I think you mean meaning #1 below, correct?
>
> (1) radio sends unidirectional credit flow to router to perform "flow
> control from router towards radio"
>
> or
>
> (2) router sends unidirectional credit flow to radio to perform "flow
> control from router towards radio"
>
> Similarly for confusion in third paragraph on "flow control from the radio
> to the router".
>
> I agree if you meant meaning #1 above and disagree if  you meant meaning #2
> above.
>
> I strongly agree with your first and fourth paragraphs.
>
> Thanks,
> Jim Stevens
>
> ==  Tue, 14 Feb 2017 08:31:02 +0100 email from Henning Rogge
> ==
> ==
> == Hi,
> ==
> == in general flow control is about keeping the "bottleneck/queue" mostly
> == on the router, where we can control it at a central point. That is an
> == important part of the design goal of DLEP.
> ==
> == I think flow control from the router towards the radio is THE most
> == important part, it is practically necessary for all radios if you want
> == to do some kind of Priorization on the router.
> ==
> == Flow control from the radio to the router is a (in my opinion) rare
> == cornercase for radios with a TDMA that can control incoming traffic.
> ==
> == Because of this I think an unidirectional flow control extension is a
> == good idea, otherwise we add a lot of complexity which will nearly
> == never be used.
> ==
> == Henning Rogge
> ==
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>