Mike Tancsa writes:
> At 08:44 PM 10/15/2001 -0700, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> >This makes sense.. and that's is exactly what queues are for:
> >absorbing bursts. If you have big bursts then you'll need big
> >queues.. in general this is the only reason to have them.
>
> The only mystery I didnt solve
At 08:44 PM 10/15/2001 -0700, Archie Cobbs wrote:
>This makes sense.. and that's is exactly what queues are for:
>absorbing bursts. If you have big bursts then you'll need big
>queues.. in general this is the only reason to have them.
The only mystery I didnt solve in the end was what was genera
Mike Tancsa writes:
> >> Is it better for the networking layer to deal with this (potentially
> >> introducing some latency) as opposed to letting the application ?
> >
> >But no, the network should just do "best effort".. that is, unless
> >you are a telco type in which case, go back to your X.2
[Quoting Archie Cobbs, I think:]
>> There is probably a good paper somewhere outlining the "best effort"
>> philosophy but I don't know what it is.
That would be ``End-to-End Arguments in System Design'' by Jerry
Saltzer, Dave Reed, and Dave Clark, one of the most influential papers
ever written
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 23:00:27 + (UTC), in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you
wrote:
>Mike Tancsa writes:
>> >If the forwarding path is maxed out, then it is the application layer's
>> >responsibility to back off (think TCP).
>>
>> Is it better for the networking layer to deal with this (potentially
