Flow Control - Fixed Versus Demand Allocation
RFC 59

Document Type RFC - Unknown (June 1970; Errata)
Last updated 2013-03-02
Stream Legacy
Formats plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Legacy state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state RFC 59 (Unknown)
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Edwin W. Meyer, Jr.
                            MIT Project MAC
                              27 June 1970

The method of flow control described in RFC 54, prior allocation of
buffer space by the use of ALL network commands, has one particular
advantage. If no more than 100% of an NCP's buffer space is allocated,
the situation in which more messages are presented to a HOST then it can
handle will never arise.

However, this scheme has very serious disadvantages:

(i)  chronic underutilization of resources,

(ii) highly restricted bandwidth,

(iii)considerable overhead under normal operation,

(iv) insufficient flexibility under conditions of increasing load,

(v)  it optimizes for the wrong set of conditions, and

(vi) the scheme breaks down because of message length indeterminacy.

Several people from Project MAC and Lincoln Laboratories have discussed
this topic, and we feel that the "cease on link" flow control scheme
proposed in RFC 35 by UCLA is greatly preferable to this new plan for
flow control.

The method of flow control proposed in RFC 46, using BLK and RSM control
messages, has been abandoned because it can not guarantee to quench flow
within a limited number of messages.

The advantages of "cease on link" to the fixed allocation proposal are

(i)  it permits greater utilization of resources,

(ii) does not arbitrarily limit transmission bandwidth,

(iii)is highly flexible under conditions of changing load,

(iv) imposes no overhead on normal operation, and

(v)  optimizes for the situations that most often occur.

Its single disadvantage is that under rare circumstances an NCP's input
buffers can become temporarily overloaded. This should not be a serious
drawback for network operation.

The "cease on link" method of flow control operates in the following

                                                                [Page 1]
NWG/RFC 59   Flow Control - Fixed Versus Demand Allocation

manner.  IMP messages for a particular "receive" link may be coming in
to the destination HOST faster than the attached process is reading them
out of the NCP's buffers. At some point the NCP will decide that the
input queue for that link is too large in relation to the total amount
of free NCP buffer space remaining. At this time the NCP initiates
quenching by sending a "cease on link" IMP message to its IMP. This does
nothing until the next message for that link comes in to the destination
IMP. The message still gets transmitted to the receiving HOST. However,
the RFNM returned to the transmitting HOST has a special bit set. This
indicates to the originating NCP that it should stop sending over that
link. As a way of confirming the suspension, the NCP sends an SPD <link>
"suspended" NCP control message to the receiving HOST, telling it that
it indeed has stopped transmitting. At a future time the receiving pro-
cess will have cut the input queue for the link down to reasonable size,
and the NCP tells the sending NCP to begin sending messages by issuing a
RSM <link> "resume" NCP control message.

The flow control argument is based on the following premises:

(1)  Most network transmission falls into two categories:
     Type 1 - short messages (<500 bits) at intervals of several seconds
     or more. (console communication)
     Type 2 - a limited number (10 - 100) of full messages (8000 bits)
     in rapid succession. (file transmission)

(2)  Most processes are ready to accept transmitted data when it arrives
     at the destination and will pick it up within a few seconds (longer
     for large files). Thus, at any particular instant the great major-
     ity of read links have no data buffered at the destination HOST.
     This assumes a sensible software system at both ends.

(3)  Flow control need be imposed only rarely on links transmitting Type
     1 messages, somewhat more frequently for Type 2 messages.

(4)  Both the total network load and that over a single connection fluc-
     tuate and can not be adequately predicted by either the NCP or the
     process attached to an individual connection.

(5)  Assuming adequate control of wide bandwidth transmission (Type 2),
     the probability that an NCP will be unable to accept messages from
     the IMP due to full buffers is quite small, even if the simultane-
     ous receipt of moderately small messages over all active links
     would more than fill the NCP's input buffers.

(6)  In the event that an NCP's buffers do fill completely, it may
     refuse to accept any transmission from the IMP for up to a minute
     without utter catastrophe.

                                                                [Page 2]
NWG/RFC 59   Flow Control - Fixed Versus Demand Allocation

(7)  Under cases of extreme input load, if an NCP has large amounts of
     data buffered for input to a local process, AND that process has
     not read data over that connection for more than a minute, the NCP
     may delete that data to make space for messages from the IMP. This
Show full document text