Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR)

[Philip Balister]

If I get bored (not likely), I would like to try isosynchronous
transfers over USB. My thinking is a dropped packet is no worse than a
burst of interference. For radio links, the higher level protocols are
already handling error detection and correction.

Philip

On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 09:32 -0500, David Carr wrote:
> Lets say that we use UDP/RTP.  Most non connection-oriented protocols
> involve an application layer connection control scheme.  For TX, each
> packet has a number and the device NACKs a packet if it is received when
> the buffer is full.  The host then retries NACKed packets at a given
> interval and gives up if not successful after N tries.  This is still a
> lot lighter than a TCP stack (and could be done in an FPGA).
> 
> -David Carr
> 
> Eric Blossom wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 02:31:41PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 08:52:33PM -0700, Eric Blossom wrote:
> >>
> >>I don't really understand why you would want flow control.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Think about the transmit path.
> >
> >Simplest possible test case:
> >
> >  Software sine wave generator talking to transmit hardware.  There is
> >  nothing throttling the signal generator.  It will produce an
> >  infinite amount of data as quickly as it can.  You want the DAC
> >  clock to control pacing.  Any kind of host based pacing will lead to
> >  trouble (under or overruns).
> >
> >Eric
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
> >address@hidden
> >http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio