Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [RPRWG] protection messages





Necdet,

Thanks for pointing this out.  Per the current draft,
Type B's aren't sent that often (1/10-th the rate of 
Type A's) and so it's possible that they can be 
sourced in software.  

Anyway, let's assume for now that we absolutely had 
to keep protection and fairness separate.  How would 
you recommend that we address the issue of timely 
delivery of the protection notification message?

I see only 2 possibilties:

- Periodic link status broadcasts (regardless of whether 
  the link is up or not).

- Hop-by-hop reliable broadcast when the link status
  changes.

I'm OK with either.  Can you think of any other ways
to do this?

-Anoop

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Necdet Uzun [mailto:nuzun@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 7:13 PM
> To: Anoop Ghanwani
> Cc: 'stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx'
> Subject: Re: [RPRWG] protection messages
> 
> 
> Anoop,
> 
> Type B fairness message is generated by Fairness Control Unit (in
> hardware) and sent to client, whereas protection messages are 
> generated
> MAC control unit (which is implemented in software) and multicast to
> other MACs' control units. Combining them is the worst that can happen
> (HW vs SW, microsecond time frame vs millisecond time frame etc.)
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Necdet
> 
> Anoop Ghanwani wrote:
> 
> > I had a comment that expressed concern about the delivery
> > of protection notification messages.
> >
> > The way things are defined in D0.2, the messages are
> > neither reliable nor periodic.  There are no
> > acknowledgments, so we are never sure that all nodes
> > have seen the protection notification message.
> > Sending special protection messages periodically
> > increases the overhead (but even that is not specified).
> > Why can't we piggyback the protection notification
> > onto Type B fairness messages since they are required
> > to be sent frequently in any case (typically more
> > frequently than 1 msec)?
> >
> > The ad hoc's response to my comment says that Type B's
> > are optional.  This is not true.  Sending of both Type A
> > and Type B messages is mandatory per D0.2 and there have
> > been no comments to change that behavior.
> >
> > -Anoop
> > --
> > Anoop Ghanwani - Lantern Communications - 408-521-6707
>