Subject: Re: Comments on RSVP, etc. (flow spec conformance)

From: braden (Bob Braden)
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 08:37:27 -0700

----- Begin Included Message -----

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael Bradley)
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 08:00:45 PDT

Zheng writes:

 >I didn't mean to imply any limitation of WFQ/GPS here. In fact,
 >I think WFQ/GPS has a unique feature of providing a delay
 >bound with the average-rate. What I was saying is that,
 >if mixed with other algorithms,  WFQ/GPS may lose this feature
 >(i.e. we may have to allocate at peak-rate).

Along that line, the recent paper by Shenker, Clark,
and Zhang on scheduling proposes to use a '"stalled" version
of the Virtual Clock' instead of WFQ. Now I am not sure how 
this differes from a "pure" Virtual Clock, but I do remember 
a statement by Lixia that the Virtual Clock did not provide 
a guarenteed delay bound. Could someone elaborate?

 Michael Bradley

----- End Included Message -----