Subject: RE: [bmwg] Congestion?

From: Jim McQuaid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:22:50 -0500

It seems to me that 

1	more packets offered to egress interface than it can forward =

2	more packets sitting in a queue waiting =

3	after some amount of time / packets accumulate = loss.

3 is where loss occurs and it is performance / time dependent on #2; #1 is
the condition that creates the possibility of loss.

Jim McQuaid
NetIQ

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Dubray [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 1:58 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [bmwg] Congestion?

From the BMWG minutes of the 52nd IETF related to 
<draft-ietf-bmwg-dsmterm-02.txt>:

"Follow-up commentary regarding the use of the term
'congestion' in the draft ensued. Jerry indicated by congestion
he meant 'the condition by which the device is unable to
forward packets.' It was offered that another look at what the
draft states and what Jerry means might be advantageous. It
was suggested to take follow-up discussions to the list."

The discussion offers various notions of "congestion" (Network
(multiple DUTs), device and/or port.  Perhaps a narrowing the
term to "device congestion" or "port congestion" or
some such would be beneficial...

In dsmterm-02, the definition "congestion" states: "A condition when
one or more egress interfaces are offered more packets than
are forwarded at any given instant."

I interpret this to mean packet loss is not necessarily a condition 
for congestion.  If I recall in the SLC discussion, there was that 
statement that "unable to forward" implied "loss." (due to the
monitoring at egress?)  How tight is the couplage of loss to 
congestion as refered to in the draft?

-Kevin

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

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