Re: Review of draft-bberry-pppoe-credit (Informational)
Fred Baker <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Jul 27, 2005, at 11:09 PM, Vernon Schryver wrote: > Aren't there existing, standard ways to do traffic shaping that would > not require extensions to PPPoE? > What about the reliable link flavor of PPP? Why wouldn't it provide > flow control on its segment out of the box? no. I'll remind you of a statement earlier in the thread. The objective was specifically *not* to impose reliability on the link in the sense that LAPB or TCP are reliable. The objective was to provide a way that a system-engineered interface could advise a higher layer entity in a different system implementation (connected via Ethernet) of a rate at which it was permitted to send. This is not traffic shaping in the usual sense, as it is not attempting to smooth bursty traffic nor is it imposing a rate in the sense of "mumble bps forever". What it is doing is letting the interface implementation tell the queuing implementation how much traffic it may try to send at the rate the radio happens to be sending at *right*now*. _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext