-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > That seems a bit much. Can it be avoided? I worry that we won't get > enough data if we have to keep one for each pair.
The rate's only adjusted when we get data so I don't think it will be a problem - if there's very little traffic between a given pair of neighbours then the rate isn't so important anyway. > How much of a problem is the above? I'm not sure how much of a problem it is - the link BC will be throttled in response to congestion along ABCD, but not as much as the links AB or CD, because successful requests from E to F will offset the reduction caused by unsuccessful requests from A to D. In general I suppose the more paths there are sharing a link, the more the reductions caused by one overloaded path will be offset by increases caused by other paths. This means the other paths will be less affected, but it could also mean the throttling won't propagate back to the sender - - if the link BC doesn't slow down much then the link AB won't slow down much either... >> F G >> | | >>A---B---C---D---E > > > What's the problem here? Even if C keeps a separate rate for each pair of neighbours, the paths ABCDE and FBCDG have the same previous and next hops at C, so if C reduces its rate from B to D in response to congestion at E then FBCDG will also be throttled. > My basic concern is whether it will get into freeze-down troubles with > loops (any real network will have many many loops). As long as loops in a given path can be detected, are loops in the topology a problem? Cheers, Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEPnIpyua14OQlJ3sRAk3VAKDSQcfXhoOSgWWCRLGsShypG+t1AwCfQ+/J Sr5gALYrmt/LACOrXbK1raM= =yxRN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
