>> I think the doc should say (based on Farid's work) that this behavior is
>> of specific concern to CDMA2000 networks because there is an increased
>> liklihood of a MAC configuration which exhibits it. Do you disagree that
>> this is the case?
>
> Yes.
If you want to convince me you'll have to support your answer with
something more than that. Farid has shown that there are modes in CDMA2000
which exhibit bandwidth oscillation that can degrade TCP performance.
Reiner has stated that this isn't the case for WCDMA/UMTS because of a
different time scale used for the bandwidth allocation. Please provide
your reasoning why you feel that CDMA2000 isn't more likely to experience
these problems. I'm open minded about this but you have to back up your
claim.
>> > 2. It is not always possible for bandwidth oscillation to exist in
>> > CDMA-2000. Hence, the study cases in Farid's ID are kind of "specific
>> > examples".
>>
>> Can you give specific counter examples?
>
> Sorry, I can't do it! (It may sound funny but such information is deemed
> proprietary)
So you are aware of a proprietary solution that doesn't exhibit these
problems. Thats fine. (Actually, it's good!) But because you (or your
employer) feels its proprietary, that's even more indication that there may
be/are people out there fielding systems which *do* exhibit these
oscillations. This text is for them. I think Farid's text that you pasted
below:
> IS-2000.5 specifies 14 options for finite Duration Supplemental Channel
> assignment. When we evaluated TCP performance for some of those options,
> we found that TCP didn't like them. It is true that vendors and/or
> operators may choose different configurations. However, it is important
> to realize that choosing a "better" SCH duration may come at the cost of
> additional signaling in the network which has implications to
> interference limited capacity. If you consider scheduling of users
> (especially with different QoS classes) , the problem becomes more
> complex. Even in "properly" designed sub-networks, admitting more users
> means more revenue, but also increases likelihood of bandwidth
> oscillation.
can be crafted into a suitable caveat that doesn't imply that all CDMA2000
systems have worse performance than other technologies.
--aaron
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 09:12:29 EST