Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!rex!ginosko!husc6!spdcc!eli
From: eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Randomnicity and the Token Ring (.5 and .4)
Message-ID: <4444@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM>
Date: 29 Aug 89 04:14:00 GMT
References: <8908282021.AA24495@monk.proteon.com>
Reply-To: eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias)
Lines: 32

In article <8908282021.AA24495@monk.proteon.com> hs@RELAY.PROTEON.COM writes:
!
!          Hi All: Mike O'D is I'm sure relating back to a wonderful
!          LBL paper in which one node was indeed locked out every
!          time. This happened even though the ring is egalitarian and
!          allowed one packet per customer.
!
!          If the timing of trnsmit and receive are just right, then,
!          when one guy gets his packet into the buffer, the second
!          node gets its packet refused. By the time the second figures
!          out that it should retransmit, the first node gets the
!          buffer....But, there was no randomness claused by vagueries
!          of OS, head seek times and what have you. Given a small
!          amount of randomness this could not persist. Also, our newer
!          products (and 802.5 and FDDI) have multiple buffers so it is
!          very unlikely in these newer designs.
!
!          But, the point is made that deterministic access does not
!          imply deterministic delivery. I can bring the horse to water
!          but I can't make it drink. Howard

	do you think your horse would refuse to drink even if you 
	offered it some of that oh-so-popular 802.4 water?

	although deterministic access does not imply deterministic
	delivery, mightn't some particular state-machine imply same?  
	802.4???  naaaaaaaaaaaaah.  

-- 
 ... Steve Elias (eli@spdcc.com);6178906844;6178591389; {}
/* free email to fax gateway for destinations in metro Boston area. */
/* send email and the destination fax number... */