On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Sellers, Julian P wrote:
> One good way to implement the rate-limiting function is a token
> bucket, allowing up to B back-to-back error messages to
> be transmitted in a burst, but limiting the average rate of
> transmission to N, where N can either be packets/seconds or a
> fraction of the attached link's bandwidth.
Let's rephrase this then, e.g:
One good way to implement the rate-limiting function is a token
bucket, limiting the average rate of transmission to N, where N
can either be packets/second or a fraction of the attached
link's bandwidth, but allowing up to B additional error
messages to be transmitted in a burst, as long as a long-term
average is not exceeded.
(the last line could probably be enhanced a bit more though.)
> >From an earlier message from Zachary Amsden:
>
> It seems to me that "back to back" is ill-defined. It is highly
> unlikely that the ICMP error packets will be transmitted with no other
> transmissions in between, which "back to back" seems to imply. The
> burst allowance should probably be defined as "allowing a burst of N
> packets over Ts seconds", or something along these lines.
>
> Zachary is right--"back-to-back" adds nothing but confusion.
> Please remove "back-to-back."
Back to back wasn't meant like that, that's right.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
