-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 22 May 2006, at 11:39, Michael Rogers wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ian Clarke wrote: >> What system? Is it described in a wiki page? I have seen a *lot* of >> ideas thrown around, but I haven't seen a single proposal. Perhaps I >> have overlooked it. > > I think the rough consensus was: > > * AIMD congestion control on each outgoing link > * A token bucket for flow control on each incoming link > * Fill the buckets at equal rates to ensure fairness > * When a peer's bucket is empty, reject its requests > * When a peer's bucket is full (ie when an incoming link is > underused), > add its tokens to another bucket instead > * My initial suggestion: add them to the emptiest bucket (if > there's excess bandwidth, give it to whoever asks for it) > * Matthew's suggestion: add them to the fullest bucket (giving > peers an incentive to ask for as little bandwidth as possible) > * We probably need simulations to discover the knock-on effects > of both suggestions > * When forwarding a RejectedOverload, possibly reduce the rate at > which > the rejected peer's bucket is filled > * This provides a stronger incentive to conserve bandwidth, but > could adversely affect paths that share one or more links with > the path of the rejected request > * Again, simulations are needed > > I could be forgetting something though... Thanks for the summary, it would be good if someone could capture this in a Wiki page just so we can all be clear on what the proposal is. Ian. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEcgzsQtgxRWSmsqwRAsPsAJ99YaYT9xd3g3k6omo5FODvoKK0bQCdE2s/ mmWFzXIj5Yi2U1900/aWXas= =50BY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
