Subject: Re: controlled load overload (was: Re: Concerns about exported numbers)

From: [email-masked] (Fred Baker)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 08:39:44 -0800

At 11:34 AM 1/20/96, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
>The problem is that with elastic traffic, how much to buffer for a
>particular flow before you drop depends on the total capacity and load
>at the congestion point, not the characteristics of that particular
>flow.  A better scheme would be for elastic traffic to simply specify
>the desired minimum rate "r" and not specify a "b".
>
>Currently the value zero is an illegal value of "b".  This value zero
>could be used to indicate that this is elastic traffic.  [ aside: The
>value of "r" is used to dictate a weight in WFQ or CBQ ].

or, it would seem, an arbitrarily large value for "b" would do the same
thing. It would in effect make the time interval large, negating any real
rate control.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Suppose you were an idiot.  And suppose you were a [politician].
But I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 13:10:04 -0500

> thing. It would in effect make the time interval large, negating any real

If "b" were made very large, a conciencious implementation would not
admit the reservation lacking sufficient buffering or having admitted
it would buffer exactly that amount of information before dropping.
Neither behavior is desirable.  If "b" is IEEE SP FP, then the value 0
or NaN or positive infinity could be used.

Curtis