Talk:Generic cell rate algorithm

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)

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)

No, the leaky 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 Tanenbaum's 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 not alow for any jitter or burstiness, as does the token bucket when its depth is equal to the number of tokens required for a packet. Sorry, I'm getting stressed by the repatition of this particular falacy, can you tell? Graham Fountain 14:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added a new section in the discussion page of the leaky bucket algorithm that adds to this issue.

Graham Fountain 23:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham.Fountain (talk • contribs)

update of page
I intend to give this page a thorough coat of looking at, specifically to address the misapprehensions it contains on the leaky bucket algorithm. For example the statement that the GCRA "provides a traffic shaping function" falls so far of the mark, it's painful.

However, before that can be done, the page on the leaky bucket needs to be addressed. To that end, I have created a leaky bucket/rewrite page, which needs to be reviewed. Comments please.

Graham Fountain 16:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The leaky bucket page being now done, I've put a possible rewrite of the GCRA at Talk:Generic cell rate algorithm/update.Graham Fountain 16:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There having been no adverse comments, I'm overwriting the page with the update. Graham Fountain 08:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)