Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!steinmetz!sprite!montnaro
From: montnaro@sprite.steinmetz (Skip Montanaro)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Life after source quench
Message-ID: <7882@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Nov-87 11:31:04 EST
Article-I.D.: steinmet.7882
Posted: Mon Nov 16 11:31:04 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Nov-87 04:29:36 EST
References: <8711091811.AA23668@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: root@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP
Reply-To: montnaro@sprite.steinmetz (Skip Montanaro)
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 24

In article <8711091811.AA23668@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu> kline@uxc.cso.uiuc.EDU
(Charley Kline) writes:
>I'm sure that the reason that the fuzzball is issuing quenches every
>thirty seconds is because if only one quench is sent, IP throttles back
>to one packet every 500 milliseconds (which should keep the fuzzball
>happy), but when the 30 second quench reaction stops, IP starts
>vomiting the packets full blast again, which causes another quench. I'm
>pleased that the quench mechanism creates such effective data rate
>communication between an IP module and IP gateways.
>
>I can't take credit for the method, it's an implementation of Postel's
>proposal. I only messed with the parameters.

I'm no whiz at anything related to TCP/IP (although I find this group
interesting, if not necessary, reading), but this seems like a
situation that calls for either

1. Some hysteresis. Is it wise (correct?) to have the start quench and
stop quench thresholds be the same?

2. Finer granularity. Given the rate at which most machines can spew
out packets, 500 milliseconds sounds rather coarse.

Skip (montanaro@ge-crd.arpa or uunet!steinmetz!sprite!montanaro)