Subject: [PCN] question about draft-satoh-pcn-st-marking-01

From: SATOH Daisuke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:40:51 +0900

Hi Phil,

> hi daisuke
> 
> i red teh draft and looked at your slides about syncronisation. unfortunately i still dont understand at all. i'm not even sure whether you're trying to get rid of synchonrisation or not (note the argument in one of anna's drafts that synchonisation actually helps). if you are trying to get rid of it, i beleive that this can be done as a local optimisation that still meets the WG marking behaviour draft. ie occasionly you randomly decide not to mark this pkt (as indicated by the state of the meters) but instead mark the next pkt [i'd argue that this would be "functionally equiavelent" within the meaning of the draft, which implies through the examples that 2 markers have functionally equivalent behaviour if they mark identical pkts or shifted by one]
> 
>  

Our algorithm does not absolutely get rid of synchronization. But the probability that synchronization occurs is very low. Synchronization occurs only when the number of flows is equal to N^2 and the number of flows does not change.

> 
> anyway, i think syncronisation is something we're going to have to discuss face-to-face!

Yes. I think so.

Best regards,
Daisuke