[6531] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Schwartz)
Tue Dec 17 14:37:36 1996
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 14:24:16 -0500 (EST)
From: David Schwartz <davids@wiznet.net>
To: Dennis Ferguson <dennis@jnx.com>
Cc: Tony Li <tli@jnx.com>, Mike Leber <mleber@he.net>,
Nathan Stratton <nathan@netrail.net>, Joe Rhett <joe@navigist.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199612171907.LAA04333@skank.jnx.com>
I'm quite curious how they handle full-duplex FDDI where
witholding the token doesn't seem to be an option. Do they simply drop
packets when traffic gets bursty?
Ironically, I'd prefer they drop the packet bound for a busy port
rather than stop all incoming traffic from a port until the busy port
frees.
If anyone has experience with NetStar's GigaRouters, especially
in comparison to the GigaSwitches, I'd love to hear about it. You can
reach me at davids@wiznet.net.
DS
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> > My (admittedly second hand) understanding is that the Gigaswitch/FDDI
> > actually has minimal amounts of buffering. During a congestion event, it
> > simply withholds the token, resulting in buffering in the routers. Queues
> > there eventually overflow, and ...
>
> This matches my understanding, though I think it understates the problem.
> Gigaswitches are essentially input-queued. When their teeny tiny buffers
> fill they flow-control everyone to slow them down. What this means is that
