[3451] in linux-net channel archive
Re: BW limiting/simulation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dennis)
Mon Jun 24 11:05:15 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:02:40 -0400
To: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox)
From: dennis@etinc.com (Dennis)
Cc: linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
>[Discussion about precise techniques removed - I think you'll find Dennis we
>were arguing the same thing]
>
>> You're assuming that every TCP implementation in the world works the way you
>> think
>> it does. Believe me this is a very dangerous assumption. You also have to
>> account for
>> other types of traffic (other than TCP), so this alone is not adaquate, even
>> if it works.
>
>I'm assuming every TCP implementation in the world backs off on losing frames.
>If it doesn't its not a TCP implementation. You also don't depend on the
>behaviour of the other TCP beyond that because if it adjusts more slowly it
will
>take several drops before it gets the speeds right.
>
>The simulation with any traffic shaper is very close to precisely the behaviour
>you would get from an actual physical device. The problem is purely one of
>efficient representation of the simulation rather than "what are we simulating"
>
>Its also a topic with enough literature to give you a years reading.
Any probably more than just a few good laughs :-) Im not a fan of academic
designs. SNMP being my least favorite of all.....
>
>Alan
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerging Technologies, Inc. http://www.etinc.com
Synchronous Communications Cards and Routers For
Discriminating Tastes. 56k to T1 and beyond. Frame
Relay, PPP, HDLC, and X.25 for BSD/OS, FreeBSD
and LINUX
