Re: Discussion on window size

avri wrote:
> I have several thoughts on this:
> 
> - the size given is just a hint to the controller, so in effect it is
> free to do whatever works best for it.  In fact the text goes on to
> suggest the possibility of experimenting with different window size to
> determine heuristically the best window size.
> 
> - since all messages can fail and all failures require an
> acknowledgment, it makes sense to me to include all messages.

I agree that all messages should be counted against the window but for a
different reason than the one you stated.
One purpose of the window is to avoid buffer over flow. This requires
all messages to be counted against the window.

<snip>
> Requested change:   
> 
> - insert text recommending that all messages MAY be included in window
> utilazation calculations

I think it should be "all messages SHOULD be included".

> - insert text say that if all message, including those that don't
> require an ack, are included, then there SHOULD be a timeout timer.
> -insert text saying that in the case of a new adjacency, the window
> SHOULD be emptied, and that in the case of of a recovered adjacency It
> MAY be emptied if the information is not needed.
> 
> I do not propose adding a method for determining the consistency of the
> state at this point though it may be good to describe some possible
> methods for doing so in chapter 11.  opinions?


Regards
/Georg
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georg Kullgren            Nortel Networks AB    [email protected]
Systems Architect         S:t Eriksgatan 115 A  Tel:   +46-8-50 88 36 18
Routing Architecture Lab  SE-113 85 Stockholm   Mobile: +46-703-14 36 18
ATI Strategic Protocols   Sweden                Fax:   +46-8-50 88 35 01