Aaron:
I cannot make any more comments. I am for the last comment you made about
crafting the text. I would be happy if the references to cdma2000 are kept
to a minimum.
Thanks,
Kamesh
Aaron Falk wrote:
>
> >> 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