home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!research.ptt.nl!walvdrk
- From: walvdrk@research.ptt.nl (KEES VAN DER WAL)
- Subject: Re: Congestion Avoidance
- Message-ID: <1992Jul27.204940.1@research.ptt.nl>
- Sender: usenet@spider.research.ptt.nl (USEnet News)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: dnlts0
- Organization: PTT Research, The Netherlands
- References: <1992Jul18.230550.3046@sics.se> <1992Jul19.130005.1@research.ptt.nl> <1992Jul25.092823.12189@e2big.mko.dec.com> <k3jm90-.nagle@netcom.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:49:40 GMT
- Lines: 38
-
- In article <k3jm90-.nagle@netcom.com>, nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
-
- > Uh oh. As the one-time congestion maven of the Internet
- > (look at the RFCs that bear my name) I somehow thought the cell relay
- > people had developed a new solution to the problem that would make
- > huge connectionless nets work. If they haven't, there's going to be
- > trouble a few years downstream.
-
- Well, as ATM (as it has been defined now) is connection-oriented _only_ ...
-
-
- But ... (taking the chance to be hit) ...
-
-
- is there any future for connectionless operation?
-
-
-
- If a user (or maybe only part of the users) require(s) some kind of "guarantee"
- about cell loss or througput, I tend to say "no".
-
- What's so attractive in present-day connectionless networks?
-
- - Just the comfort of getting rid of the data and let the network do the hard
- work?
- - Or the potential to spread the load more evenly over the entire network?
- - Or just because the user doesn't want to do signalling (I admit, signalling
- procedures should be made faster).
- - ....?
-
-
- Regards, <kees>
-
- Kees van der Wal e-mail: J.C.vanderWal@research.ptt.nl
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- PTT Research Neher Laboratories Room: E130
- Sint Paulusstraat 4 Fax: +31 70 3326477
- 2264 XZ Leidschendam The Netherlands Phone: +31 70 3326295
-