> This is exactly the *only* situation, where classic flow control makes sense > and
> does really help, since it properly triggers output queueing at the sending > side > when the real data-path speed is reached. OK, the vitriol towards .3x in this thread was so strong I was concerned I had somehow misunderstood it. > Any other usage is likely to cause more problems than benefits. Documentation that I could find is vague at best, but are any switches actually doing end-to-end .3x and signaling ingress ports on a congested egress queue? (inferring that this is the 'problems' everyone is citing?) At least for simple flowcontrol, propagating across the bus/fabric seems wholly broken and unnecessarily complex. However, sending a pause on a congested port complex (ie. on PINNACLE's interface's to the bus or MEDUSA/HYPERION) towards the port strikes me as both desirable and the most-likely form of implementation. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
