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? > 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? 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? Cheers, Michael
