Re: RF flag
art@sage.acc.com Tue, 05 December 1989 23:23 UTC
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) id AA23536; Tue, 5 Dec 89 15:23:30 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA16012; Tue, 5 Dec 89 15:23:23 -0800
Message-Id: <8912052323.AA16012@decwrl.dec.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 1989 15:22:00 -0800
From: art@sage.acc.com
Subject: Re: RF flag
To: mtudwg <mtudwg>
>It is understood that Congestion is a Really Big Problem, but it is >far from agreed that the DEC bit is the solution. Jacobson's approach >of discarding packets as a congestion "signal" has the advantages of >(a) immediately reducing the number of packets in the network, and >(b) working with existing host implementations. Any time that you push the net to the point of dropping packets, the total useful throughput drops. I think that Van might even agree that the DEC Bit has some advantages. The DEC Bit tends to detect congestion when it first appears and attempts to signal this to the end systems before the congestion gets out of hand. Van's algorithm uses the only currently available signal, congestive loss. In this mode, the routers are forced to operate near what DEC calls the "cliff". Any surge in load at this operating point causes large losses. The DEC Bit attempts to keep the router at an operating point (the "knee") which can still cope with traffic fluctuations. This point also optimizes the throughput/delay ratio. Also the DEC Bit is better at discriminating between congestion and real loss. >Respectfully yours, >Steve +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Art Berggreen Advanced Computer Communications | | <art@sage.acc.com> Santa Barbara Street | | (805)963-9431 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
- RF flag Steve Deering
- Re: RF flag art
- Re: RF flag Steve Deering
- Re: RF flag Noel Chiappa
- Re: RF flag Noel Chiappa
- Re: RF flag Steve Deering