misunderstanding of 'backpressure' algorithm

I believe the attached technical report should explain how, and why the part behaves as it does/

-- Rich Seifert Networks and Communications Consulting 21885 Bear Creek Way (408) 395-5700 Los Gatos, CA 95033 (408) 228-0803 FAX

Send replies to: usenet at richseifert dot com

begin 644 TechRept15.pdf M)5!$1BTQ+C$@#27BX\\_3(`TQ,"`P(&]B:@T\\/`TO3&5N9W1H(#$Q(#`@4@TO M1FEL=&5R("],6E=$96-O9&4@#3X^#7-T-PSC*.8Z# M3(`01^-PZ#D-Z?#2-T`J2I:FP*U26M]#$%P,&8;AO'!Q!\\$`0H=GX"&5P,H:P0!7;U1VC\\`3T!,CB"`(]%8XNZ"&$ M$$!E2I`PID>AYR-0I%0;3X;#+QGB/0@N$=F'('1/Y_4`K& M41X1?'_P_:_,$IDEJ[!U#.YX.CNF$@V5`0X@(`UE;F1S=')E86T-96YD;V)J M#3$Q(#`@;V)J#3$T.#,-96YD;V)J#30@,"!O8FH-/#P-+U1Y[J M@YT/]F0+/*`[JT-:NUB_K0C"XK$4"J'I2P6L,SW6.=H\\$F2JAO2TN%![;U MFMR4.S@&ZTRH!U90N4K#(F*I"-^VLK1B`@N?9&[@.H;4A0?5='D]17I/F/D# M'&.8&5,YP(*)T M5HO1FR9J+*ET1V^PZE7$,H_0E8I[E@GO&NAC2YS"NPWJ]5^D8[#JDN%A#&&L M,I7)\\G$9\\E=#,HC1G.5ZB(-S:S4!N-X:9JA4RJHZ0B'(-M"%C-..V9I*=&P8 M`T48"@YZ67LU"L@98Q`4W+,!M0N0R)53/H94U7%5"/8$'M8A74T)T0PAJ:_0 M2IBNX2W$1/:LLYU#)QK,=>0&T\\J/FH5%&P/*N&?(V#F9:NRQ*(,A\\L%8IP2GCP&&/0(#EEY:6]V+J"PWSN="&21

My proposal in the paper calls for discontinuing the preamble transmission *briefly*, to avoid invoking either a jabber or an excessive deferral condition. However, if the carrier is then reasserted quickly (before the 2/3 IFG time), it can still prevent other stations from initiating their transmissions.

-- Rich Seifert Networks and Communications Consulting 21885 Bear Creek Way (408) 395-5700 Los Gatos, CA 95033 (408) 228-0803 FAX

Send replies to: usenet at richseifert dot com

Hello, Rich! You wrote on Mon, 09 Jan 2006 08:37:07 -0800:

??>> deference). To avoid jabber and excessive deference defined in 802.3 ??>> standard, after a certain time it will discontinue the carrier sense ??>> but it will raise the carrier sense quickly. This short silent time ??>> (no carrier sense) is to prevent other stations from sending out ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ??>> packets and keeps other stations in carrier sense deferred state. If

RS> I believe the attached technical report should explain how, and why the RS> part behaves as it does/ Thank you for document, it's indeed clarified part of doubts. But still I don't understand 'underlined', as I know absence of carrier indicates the media is free and is allowed to transmit data?

With best regards, Roman Mashak. E-mail: snipped-for-privacy@tusur.ru

No *transmission on the medium*, no carrier sense. Preamble is just a convenient, benign signal to transmit on the medium.

-- Rich Seifert Networks and Communications Consulting 21885 Bear Creek Way (408) 395-5700 Los Gatos, CA 95033 (408) 228-0803 FAX

Send replies to: usenet at richseifert dot com

Hello, Rich! You wrote on Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:13:00 -0800:

RS> My proposal in the paper calls for discontinuing the preamble RS> transmission *briefly*, to avoid invoking either a jabber or an RS> excessive deferral condition. However, if the carrier is then RS> reasserted quickly (before the 2/3 IFG time), it can still prevent RS> other stations from initiating their transmissions. Did I understand right: no preamble - no carrier sense ?

With best regards, Roman Mashak. E-mail: snipped-for-privacy@tusur.ru

(snip)

As far as I know, it was to give the PLL something to sync. to before the actual data arrived.

-- glen

Hello, Rich! You wrote on Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:37:45 -0800:

RS>>> reasserted quickly (before the 2/3 IFG time), it can still prevent RS>>> other stations from initiating their transmissions. ??>> Did I understand right: no preamble - no carrier sense ? ??>>

RS> No *transmission on the medium*, no carrier sense. Preamble is just a RS> convenient, benign signal to transmit on the medium. So, issuing preamble is a way to announce about upcoming transmission ?

With best regards, Roman Mashak. E-mail: snipped-for-privacy@tusur.ru