[e2e] Is a control theoretic approach sound?

[John T. Wen]

David:

I'm not sure that you need a "control theorist" to answer that question.  My
sense is that packet-level dynamics involve modeling the behavior down to
each packet, so only integral number of packets may be considered and finite
state machine and queuing theory are  the relevant tool.  Flow dynamics is
an approximation in an average sense (# of packet/unit time) and the integer
requirement of # of packet is ignored.  The relevant models are differential
or difference equations, and stability theory and control theory are the
relevant analysis tools.

John

----- Original Message -----
From: "Xiaoliang (David) Wei" <weixl at caltech.edu>
To: "Shivkumar Kalyanaraman" <shivkuma at ecse.rpi.edu>; "Saverio Mascolo"
<mascolo at poliba.it>
Cc: <end2end-interest at postel.org>; "John Wen" <wen at ecse.rpi.edu>; "Murat
Arcak" <arcak at ecse.rpi.edu>
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: [e2e] Is a control theoretic approach sound?


> > So, i think it makes sense to study these frameworks to take the
> > congestion control robustness and dynamics discussion above the level of
> > handwaving "packet-level" dynamics to rigorous flow-level models. The
> > contributions of control-theoretic folks to networks in this area is
> > invaluable.
> >
> > best
> > -Shiv
>
>      Probably a naive question to many control-theoretic people (since I'm
> not a control theorist):  The terms "packet-level" and "flow-level" were
> brought up many times. Could you give a rigorous definition of
"packet-level
> dynamic" and "flow-level dynamic"?
>      Thank you:)
>
> -David
>
> Xiaoliang (David) Wei             Graduate Student in CS at Caltech
> http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~weixl
> ====================================================
>
>
>