Jump to content

Talk:Generic cell rate algorithm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 11:02, 9 May 2010 (Signing comment by 91.110.29.36 - ""). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Can someone please add yes and no to the parts of the decision diagram that have decisions in them? I'm not sure exatly what the flow is supposed to be otherwise I would do it myself.

Also, where are the figures it mentions?


Confusing: Definition of terms are lacking. For instance, what is a "Cell" in this context? 64.109.44.18 (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Isn't the GCRA represented by a token bucket algorithm using a leaky bucket? The leaky bucket algorithm does not allow bursts, so it provides a constant data stream. In opposition the token bucket algorithm and GCRA allow bursts. In the book about Network calculus a leaky bucket is used to visualize the token bucket algorihm (in the leaky bucket tokens are stored). Also it is mentioned that this algorithm is used in the integrated services, where it is referenced as token bucket algorithm

130.83.244.131 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the leak bucket and the token bucket are symmetrical and will see the same packets as conforming or nonconforming, if given the same parameters. The only real differences are that the leaky bucket description is about adding water when packet conformance is tested and taking it out at regular intervals; whereas the token bucket is about taking out tokens when conformance testing and adding them in regularly. Functionally they are identical. Yes I have read Tanenbaums description in his book computer networks. However, I've also read Turner, who Tanenbaum credits as the first to describe it, and the ITU-T/ATM Forum description in I.371 and the Forum's UNI. Sorry for this, but Tanenbaum is wrong; or at least his description is simplified to the point where it is, in general, wrong, and applies only to a single specific case, where the bucket depth is exactly equal to the water added by a packet or cell. Only in this special case does the leaky bucket, and the token bucket, not alow for any jitter or burstiness. Sorry, I'm getting stressed by the repatition of this particular falacy, can you tell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.29.36 (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Generic_cell_rate_algorithm&oldid=361065710"