Subject: RE: fast protocol hellos

From: "Naidu, Venkata" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:42:12 -0500

Curtis,

-> Note that a slow reciever can consider the dead interval to 
-> be longer.
-> The sender is only indicating that it can send regularly at 
-> the higher
-> interval.
-> 
-> It still might be worth having a "slower please" message to indicate
-> that while the sender can put out one packet per microsecond the
-> receiver would have trouble processing the load and it would do no
-> good to send faster than some specified rate.

  To be frank, I don't think adding messages to do *flow control* is
  necessary. Keep the protocol simple and fast - as simple as
  as to implement in line cards.

  If we keep adding such messages for *binary on/off flow control*
  mechanisms then some "state machine" is also required. How much
  slow is slow to the receiver ? All such questions require
  some statistical data (as TCP guys did over years).

  Though your suggestion solves some issues, possibly, unnecessary
  packet loss of hellos if the senders rate is higher than
  receiver's processing speed, but I don't think that solve
  any practical problems in practical networks (apart from corner
  cases).

  Comments are welcome. Thanks You.

--
Venkata.
_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

---

From: Paul Traina <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:47:40 -0800

What if you avoid the state machine and do the flow control via
the moral sibling of keep timers?
_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

---

From: Paul Traina <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:47:40 -0800