Robert, > The second part of the question was really about at what layer it makes most > sense to provide this control loop.
To me, the obvious thing to do is to make minor revisions to the protocol. We need to: - Add a TLV so that the receiver can provide feedback. IMHO, this should be in IIH’s and PSNPs. - Add text to modify the transmitters behavior. In the presence of this TLV, the transmitter is released from 10589 compliance and may transmit (details TBD). - Add text to modify the receivers behavior. If you support this feature, then add the TLV, send PSNPs more frequently (rate & trigger TBD). > Options seems to be: > > * Invent new or use existing link layer flow control (IEEE) > * Reuse existing transport layer (TCP) > * App layer (QUIC or QUIC like) All of these seem like massive overkill. > I guess it would be useful to up front list on what type of media this must > be supported as it may change the game drastically: > > * directly connected fiber p2p > * p2mp (via switch) > * p2p over encapsulation > etc… All of the above, plus legacy media too. No reason why this doesn’t apply to 100BaseT. Bandwidth is not the constraint. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
