Mukesh,
I agree with Pekka here. The text you suggested does look like
a little too much overconcerned.
The text that Pekka suggested, sounds agreeable to me.
I think talking about Rate Limiting a little bit and making some
suggestions to the implementor should be enough. There are too
many
Hi,
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Fred Templin wrote:
Pekka Savola wrote:
Designing for this kind of vastly different capacities in
each direction just don't seem to be worth considering here.
I have to disagree; I believe there is a clear need to design
for diverse link bandwidths to support
From Pekka's text:
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
Julian,
do you completely want to remove back-to-back or ..back-to-back
ICMP error messages.. will be agreeable ??
I don't mind removing back-to-back if it is creating confusion ?
Let me know.
Regards
Mukesh
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
