Subject: RE: loosening of Throughput standard?

From: "Perser, Jerry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:01:21 -0700

No.  Not as far as I am concerned, as Netcom Systems is concerned, nor the
applications they develop.  The definition of throughput is clear and
concise.

If you want something looser than Throughput, try Forwarding Rate from RFC
2285.  You can state the Maximum Forwarding Rate while packets are being
dropped.

There are some people that are applying an acceptable frame loss rate to the
throughput definition.  The next question (or argument) is what is
acceptable?  I do not recommend this route because it is non-standard and
difficult to do comparisons.

> While I was looking the other way... has there been a loosening
> of the definition of Throughput in RFC 1242?
> 
> My interpretation is Throughput is the highest frame rate in
> which no packets are dropped.
> 
> thanks.
> 
> -paul

___________________________________________________________ 
Jerry Perser               Phone: 818.676.2320 
SmartLab Manager           Lab:   818.676.2337 
Netcom Systems Inc.        Fax:   818.880.9165     
26750 Agoura Road          Corp:  818.676.2300 
Calabasas, CA, 91302       Pager: [email-masked]

---

From: "Conrad C. Nobili" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:38:13 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Perser, Jerry wrote:

> There are some people that are applying an acceptable frame loss rate
> to the throughput definition.

Why?!?  That doesn't make any sense!

> The next question (or argument) is what is acceptable?

Zero frames lost.

> I do not recommend this route because it is non-standard and

That's true, but entirely beside the more important point that it makes
no sense anyway.

--cn

Conrad C. Nobili  [email-masked]  Harvard University NDTL/NOC