Subject: Re: support for packet drop priority

From: "Nachum Shacham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 08:46:35 -0800

Steve,

>
>, I suggest you peruse the archive

Taking the risk of being sent to peruse an email archive, I'd like to ask a
simple question: Aren't the low priority packets, by definition, going only
as far as they don't interfere with any other packets.  Once they do, they
are dropped.  So who gets hurt?

Also, having two drop priorities does not exclude using some feedback
mechanism.  The souce might consider the feedback from the net (delay, loss,
discard notices etc.) and decide that it wants to gamble a bit.  It will
send some more packets and if they make it, fine.  If they hit a road bump,
they vanish.
There is some router processing lost, but I don't see much bandwidth lost.

Nachum

---

From: Steve Deering <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 08:55:19 -0800

> are dropped.  So who gets hurt?

Nachum,

See my example from the earlier conversation that Alessio Casati reposted
this morning.  You will see that non-deliverable low-priority packets
consume bandwidth that could otherwise be used productively by other
people's deliverable low-priority packets.

Steve

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 00:18:36 +0000

>>people's deliverable low-priority packets.

right...

to use a (terrible) analogy

its like all the cheapskate
commuters from the backupped toll freeway who exceeded 
their got bumped to the local side rode ,and then stopped all the
weekday shopppers getting their groceries on time....

its another version of the "higher level admisson test" syndrome...

the point is that a person "out of profile" is the "lowest of the
low", whereas an honest broker of best effort is the salt of the
earth...
 cheers

   jon