[PWOT] Re: comment on latest draft-martini-l2circuit-encap-mpls-01.txt

Dan Tappan <tappan@cisco.com> Tue, 20 March 2001 00:15 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 SMTP id TAA27008 for <pwot-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 19:15:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA09175; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 19:09:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA09141 for <pwot@ns.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 19:09:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pilgrim.cisco.com (pilgrim.cisco.com [171.69.204.12]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA26871 for <pwot@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 19:09:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tappan-w2k.cisco.com (tappan-frame1.cisco.com [10.83.99.42]) by pilgrim.cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA06989; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 19:08:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010319190043.03d31998@pilgrim.cisco.com>
X-Sender: tappan@pilgrim.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 19:08:28 -0500
To: "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@tenornetworks.com>
From: Dan Tappan <tappan@cisco.com>
Cc: pwot@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <6B190B34070BD411ACA000B0D0214E56993D58@newman.tenornet.com >
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [PWOT] Re: comment on latest draft-martini-l2circuit-encap-mpls-01.txt
Sender: pwot-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwot-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <pwot.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: pwot@ietf.org

[ moved to the right working group list]

At 04:34 PM 3/16/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Hello Luca,
>
>Sorry for the late comment, I didn't know of this draft until recently.
>I see the addition of the control word and algorithm for handling
>sequence numbers on send and receive side.
>
>It seems that sequence check on receive side does not handle the
>wrap around correctly, i.e. finds the out-of-sequence little too late.
>
>For example if the max was 64,
>
>sender                   receiver's expected Seq
>
>62          ->           62, next: 62+1=63
>64          ->           63, 64>=63 packet in order. Next: 64+1=1, wrapped
>63          ->           1, 63>=1 packet in order. Next: 63+1=64
>1           ->           64, 1 !>=64. packet out-of-order, drop, next:1+1=2
>
>As shown above, out-of-order packet already forwarded!

In general with a circular sequence number space you need to include the 
concept of a 'window' - the maximum sequence number that is reasonable to 
receive. This got left out of the definition in the draft. My inclination 
would be to define the window to 1/2 the sequence space (it could be made 
arbitrarily smaller, but there may not be any point). So, in your example 
above:
- 63 > 1 + window, so discard
- 1 == 1, in sequence

  


_______________________________________________
pwot mailing list
pwot@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwot