Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!UDEL.EDU!Mills
From: Mills@UDEL.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  SLIP working group?
Message-ID: <8804191238.aa03821@Huey.UDEL.EDU>
Date: 19 Apr 88 16:38:27 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 15

Ralph,

There are lots of schemes to deal with the unfairness issue I mentioned,
the most attractive of which may be based on schedule-to-deadline
principles you mention. While fragmentation can be used to reduce
latency, you have to be careful how the fragmentation is done. Those
implementations I know about transmit all fragments of a gram one after
the other, which would defeat the purpose. Fuzzballs (and maybe others
I don't know about) requeue the datagram (with updated fragmentation info)
after each fragment transmission. This results in a two-tier discipline;
FB(n) (FIFO order in each priority queue) for grams less than the MTU
and RR (round-robin in each priority queue) otherwise. Yes, the thought
has struck me that actual queue priority could be adjusted for each
fragment and also elapsed time on the queue.

Dave