[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ns] Priority in ns, CBQ(parameters)

To: "George Khoury (ERA)" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ns] Priority in ns, CBQ(parameters)
From: Carlos Alberto Kamienski <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 07:56:43 -0300 (EST)
cc: "'Haobo Yu'" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
In-Reply-To: <5F05C89FB2F8D211B6430008C79191270560F90D@esealnt190>
Sender: [email protected]

> I thought since I have 60% and 40% allocation, the TCP could never get
> complitely starved!! Am I wrong?

No. You are correct. This is the idea! Unless the CBQ implementation could
present in some time a silly error, starvation should never happen if the
queue has a minimum amount of link bandwidth.

Carlos

> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> Regards	George
>

References:
- [ns] Priority in ns, CBQ(parameters)
  - From: "George Khoury (ERA)" <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: [ns] Priority in ns, CBQ(parameters)
Next by Date: Re: [ns]Quick ques - prompt response will be appreciated
Prev by thread: [ns] Priority in ns, CBQ(parameters)
Next by thread: RE: [ns] Priority in ns, CBQ(parameters)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread