AW: [e2e] Queue size of routers

[Shivkumar Kalyanaraman]

In terms of future technology: I heard an Intel presentation where the IXP
2xxx series was said to have over 2 GB of buffer space, which would
translate to 1.5 sec of propagation time even at 10 Gbps. The fast SRAM is
used only for strong the headers, while the payload is stored in slower
DRAM apparently.

i hear RED is widely implemented, but not-as-widely turned on due to
configuration guideline worries.

best
-Shiv
===
Shivkumar Kalyanaraman
Associate Professor, Dept of ECSE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)
110, 8th Street, Room JEC 6003, Troy NY 12180-3590
Ph: 518 276 8979   Fax: 518 276 4403
WWW: http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/Homepages/shivkuma

A goal is a dream with a deadline -C. Knight


On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Michael Welzl wrote:

> > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: end2end-interest-admin at postel.org
> > [mailto:end2end-interest-admin at postel.org]Im Auftrag von Greg Minshall
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 17. Janner 2003 18:38
> > An: Vadim Antonov
> > Cc: end2end-interest at postel.org
> > Betreff: Re: [e2e] Queue size of routers
> >
> >
> > > Routers in real backbones have the delay*bw of buffer space.
> >
> > good!
>
> Why?
>
> I'm serious - I know that a delay*bw queue length is just
> right if, for example, you suddenly fill the capacity of a
> dumbbell bottleneck in a simulation with new flows and
> don't want some of the initial packets to be dropped,
> thereby eliminating a potential traffic phase effect. But
> is that a good choice for a backbone router?
> The LA<->Tokyo RTT is quite a bit of delay ... is that
> really reasonable when only a small number of flows may
> show this RTT? Shouldn't backbone routers be more concerned
> with traffic aggregates instead?
>
> And: is there RED in backbone routers?
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>