Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!ucbvax!UDEL.EDU!Mills
From: Mills@UDEL.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  "... and statistics" (Re: [Phil Dykstra: more interesting numbers] )
Message-ID: <8804141655.aa09734@Huey.UDEL.EDU>
Date: 14 Apr 88 20:55:16 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 17

Folks,

Further to Mike Brescia's comments, the mailbridges are connected to
virtual-circuit networks that may have some pretty stiff ideas on
flow control, while the NSFNET backfuzz are connected only to each other
via DDCMP serial lines and to Ethernets at each site. While the mailbridges
can get beat up rather badly if some j-random host or gateway keels, the
backfuzz can get blown up by a co-Ether Cray. My point is that the (seven)
NSFNET critters face a quite different environment than the mailbridges
and each may have predominantly different drop mechanisms. Nevertheless,
I continue to think that engineered selective-preemption, source-quench
and priority queueing disciplines could help improve mailbridge service
in significant ways and (you saw this coming) consideration for these
issues should be incorporated into their successors, both of the LSI-11
mailbridges and the NSFNET backfuzz.

Dave