[e2e] trading acks...TRACKS

[L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk]

If a packet can't enter the network until one has left, how do
you ever get started in an empty totally quiet network? Simple
reductio ad absurdum suggests that the packet conservation
principle as expressed below is bogus. Not so much isarithmic,
as isacrock.

However, packet conservation through a router is something that
can be aspired to, under limited conditions - thinking about
a networking analogue of Kirchoff's electrical laws through the
router as a point can actually be useful, too.

L.

odd to see someone actually mention they're working on TSAT...

<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><L.Wood at surrey.ac.uk>



-----Original Message-----
From: end2end-interest-bounces at postel.org on behalf of Joe Touch
Sent: Fri 2006-12-01 23:29
To: Christian Kreibich
Cc: Jon Crowcroft; end2end-interest at postel.org
Subject: Re: [e2e] trading acks...TRACKS
 
Christian Kreibich wrote:
> Hi Detlef,
> 
> On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 17:49 +0100, Detlef Bosau wrote:
>> just a very spontaneous, perhaps stupid, question: What is the 
>> difference between "packet symmetry" and the well known principle of 
>> packet conservation here? Aren´t these ideas at least quite similar?
> 
> the packet conservation principle states that in a steady-state TCP
> flow, a new packet is not to enter the network before another one has
> left

That "packet conservation principle" already has a (perhaps not as
well-known, but certainly worth knowing) name: 'isarithmic', and was
proposed by Davies in 1972.

"Packet symmetry" appears to be per-NIC isarithmic.

The "packet conservation principle" is single-protocol isarithmic.

Joe

-- 
----------------------------------------
Joe Touch
Sr. Network Engineer, USAF TSAT Space Segment




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20061203/b9b0feee/attachment.html