[e2e] end2end-interest Digest, Vol 63, Issue 11

Detlef Bosau 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 
today ;-)

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://detlef.bosau@web.de			

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
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 mailing list