On Monday 03 December 2007 17:25, Michael Rogers wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > Well... yes and no. It was a bug at the LINK layer iirc. Remember the > > pathetically low payload percentages? > > What you call the link layer is supposed to be congestion-controlled, right?
Yes, at the link layer. Congestion control presently only applies to data packets, and yes I accept that this sucks and we have plans for a new link layer/packet format, which is more like TCP, but they haven't yet been implemented. > > > I'm not talking about stop/start signals, nor am I talking about tokens in the > > sense that you use the word. > > Then whey did you say your proposal was basically the same as token passing? > > So just to be clear, you're talking about tokens that expire, backed up > by pre-emptive rejection if too many tokens are spent at once? Yes. > > Will the grounds for pre-emptive rejection be the same as they are now > (bandwidth liability etc)? If so, how will tokens solve the current > problem of too many requests being rejected? I'm not sure that that is the main problem we have to deal with right now. My suspicion is that pre-emptive rejection is fine, but we're not being sent enough requests in the first place. Output liability limiting *may* cause too many requests to be rejected, but I don't see any evidence for that right now. And anything we could do about that would run the risk of creating timeouts if we have a burst of unusually successful requests. > > Cheers, > Michael
pgpJZIc4vhBeO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
