Hi Tony, Thank you for your explanation. Please find my comments inline.
Best Regards Xuesong > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Li [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 12:16 AM > To: Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) <[email protected]> > Cc: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Congestion (flow) control thoughts. > > > I consider flow control and congestion control to be separate, but similar > problems. > > Flow control is about creating a single control loop between a single > transmitter and single receiver. > > Congestion control is about creating multiple interacting control loops > between > multiple transmitters and multiple receivers. <Xuesong> I think there is no need to distinguish the concept of flow control and congestion control, considering that the core idea is the same: monitor the sending rate to match the capability of the bottleneck, no matter there are competitors or not. And the control loop is necessary in both case. > In our draft, we are proposing other feedback mechanisms. <Xuesong> Thank you for explaining about the bottleneck of flooding and different cc solutions that are under discussion. It is helpful and I will read the drafts. There is still one more question left in the previous email: " What is the criteria of comparing different solutions?". I think this is crucial for further discussion and comparative tests. I notice that in Bruno's data, some parameters are mentioned, such as " Duration"," LSP/second"," avg inter-LSP delay", "retransmission time". I'm wondering whether it is able to choose a better solution through these parameters. If not, what should be added or considered. (Some other issues are also considered when choosing cc mechanism in layer 4, such as: fairness among flows, co-existence with other cc mechanism .. ) > Tony > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
