Clear, thanks! > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Li [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 11:28 PM > To: Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Christian Hopps <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Congestion (flow) control thoughts. > > > Hi Xuesong, > > > I agree that "minimal flooding time " is a good choice, which may differ > > from > the traditional cc in layer 4, which is difficult to get the completion time > for > each flow. > > I am still a little confused about " fast brand X needs to not overrun slow > brand Y while performing well with fast brand Z". Is this talking about > interoperation between different company device, which may use different > type of cc mechanism? > > > Yes, I’m talking about interoperability. > > Normally, in this working group, interoperability implies that each > implementation is sending and receiving correctly formatted packets and > computing correctly. This particular item adds in one other degree of > complexity: timeliness. An implementation must be able to go fast or slow, > depending on the needs of the receiver. > > Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
