Re: iSCSI/iWARP drafts and flow control
Caitlin Bestler <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ips,gmane.ietf.rddp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 04:32 PM, Mike Ko wrote: > Since the Asynchronous Message is associated with a StatSN, instead of > waiting for the initiator to send "a command with CmdSN that was only > enabled after the non-responding target message", another possibility > is > to wait for the initiator to send any PDU containing the ExtStatSN > field > that acknowledges that the particular StatSN has been received. Even better. I am not favoring any specific mechanism, just saying that mechanisms exist -- and that they do not have to be an explicit "protocol". Note that none of the algorithms described, including your suggestion, require the receiver to calculate or issue credits. They merely have to replenish buffers in manner consistent with the rules. They can also be sloppy about it if they have slop in their buffers. The rules suggested shift the burden of flow control to the sender, where it should be. Rule enforcement at the sending side can also be quite lax if other implementation specific rules limit the number of untagged messages that could be sent. Caitlin Bestler - [email protected] - http://asomi.com/