[e2e] end2end-interest Digest, Vol 63, Issue 11
detlef.bosau at web.de
Sat Jun 27 12:05:03 PDT 2009
S. Keshav wrote:
> If you have a fluid system, where a source send packets as packets of
> infinitesimal size evenly spaced apart, and if routers do not add
> burstiness, then there is no need for buffering.
Unfortunately, packet switching networks are anything but a fluid system.
Although there is a huge amount of literature which uses fluid flow
models for TCP/IP.
> Indeed, in the classical telephone network, where sources are 64kbps
> constant bit rate sources and switches do not add burstiness, we need
> only one sample's worth of buffering, independent of the
> bandwidth-delay product.
That's exactly the conflict of paradigms I mentioned in my other message
EE: fluid flow like, with scheduling, if possible "quasi synchronous".
CS: bursts are possible, there is no scheduling, the network may be as
asynchronous as it could be....
Detlef Bosau Galileistraße 30 70565 Stuttgart
phone: +49 711 5208031 mobile: +49 172 6819937 skype: detlef.bosau
ICQ: 566129673 http://email@example.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3364 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20090627/fd9340a7/smime.bin
More information about the end2end-interest