<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
Vint, when I may ask you directly: I frequently read your catenet
model for internetworking and your paper with Bob Kahn from 74. <br>
<br>
I'm still to understand your position towards flow control between
adjacent (IP-)nodes and the subnets as well. We eventually agreed
that subnets must not do flow control (but discard packets, which
cannot be served) in order to avoid head of line blocking. Would
it make sense (though it might not be possible for practical
reasons) to assume / employ a flow based flow control which would
even work in and through the concatenated subnets?<br>
<br>
So we wouldn't have a best effort packet switching but (in a
sense) some kind of "flow switching"?<br>
<br>
Detlef <br>
<br>
Am 22.08.2014 um 16:33 schrieb Vint Cerf:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAHxHggcCev1LLf9Ok0b+exFPEku3yEW+CR_De7O1y2WUQ1KtKA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Donald Davies had the idea of an isarithmic
network: a fixed number of packets in the network at all times.
Issues however included getting "empty packets" to places with
data to send. Like the taxi problem where they end up at favored
destinations but are not available without deadheading to
favored origins.
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.researchgate.net/publication/224730989_The_Control_of_Congestion_in_Packet-Switching_Networks">http://www.researchgate.net/publication/224730989_The_Control_of_Congestion_in_Packet-Switching_Networks</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>v</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>