Talk:Leaky bucket

message: I have decided to remove the automobile analogy because it dose not add to the article.  The leaky bucket algorithm is *already described better* by the analogy of a real leaky bucket.  So no need for the automobile analogy.Lotu (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree ("the volume of the traffic is greater than the bucket size" is a terribly mixed metaphor) but why did you delete the section "Inefficiency of the leaky-bucket implementation"? I have just restored it. Qwfp (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove autombile anlogy 

message: The major problems with this article appear to stem from the fact that there are two dissimilar descriptions of the leaky bucket algorithm in the literature. On one hand, we have J. S. Turner (quoted in the existing article) and the ITU-T (in recommendation I.371), and on the other A. S. Tanenbaum (in his book Computer Networks). The major conflict between these stems from the fact that Turner and the ITU-T describe the algorithm as something used as an adjunct to the packet stream used to check conformance to a contract, where the arrival or transmission of a packet changes the contents of an analogue of the bucket; whereas, Tanenbaum describes it in terms of the packets actually passing through the analogue of the bucket. 
This means that Tanenbaum’s rather more literal interpretation of how to apply the analogy of a leaking bucket results in a much simplified algorithm, and this simplification results in limitations in its properties. Specifically, Tanenbaum states “The leaky bucket algorithm enforces a rigid output pattern at the average rate, no matter how bursty the [input] traffic is”. This is clearly in contradiction of Turner’s description, which describes the counter threshold as “a measure of burstiness”. It is also actually contradicted by Tanenbaum’s own suggested implementation for variable packet lengths, which allows multiple packets to be released within or at (the description is vague on this point) the same clock tick, which is obviously a bursty output.
Careful analysis of the Turner/ITU-T and Tanenbaum’s algorithms shows that Tanenbaum’s description is a special case of the Turner/ ITU-T algorithm applied only to shaping, and the Turner/ ITU-T algorithm is in fact an exact mirror image of the Token Bucket Algorithm: it adds content to the bucket where the TBA removes it, and leaks it away where the TBA adds it in.
It is for these reasons that there is such confusion and argument over what the leaky bucket algorithm is and what its properties are. However, both perspectives are correct, as long as one has only read either the Turner/ITU-T descriptions or Tanenbaum’s. 
With regard to the article itself, while it quotes Turner, and makes some reference to the GCRA, in the main it reiterates the limitation that Tanenbaum attributes to the algorithm, i.e. that it cannot allow burstiness in the output stream. However, this is clearly contradictory to Turners original (according to Tanenbaum himself) description, and to the use of the LBA in UPC/NPC in ATM networks.  I feel that this article should address both descriptions and should properly explain their relationships with one another and the TBA. I also believe, in the context of the ITU-T description, that it should explain such additional issues as the relationships between bucket depth, emission interval (T), jitter or delay variation tolerance (CDVt), and maximum burst size (MBS), etc., and reference self similarity.
I understand that it is not the norm to engage in wholesale re-writing of Wikipedia articles; however in this case, I feel that an editing of the article would have to be so thorough as to be indistinguishable from a total re-write. 
Graham Fountain 23:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll not get involved in the discussion about whether the article needs a rewrite (I've only glanced at it myself, and have little knowledge of the subject matter), but I've seen wholesale rewrites occurring on numerous occasions, usually in a sub-page of the main article (e.g. Leaky bucket/rewrite) so as to avoid disrupting the main article, and possibly with a note at the top to signify that such a rewrite is occurring. me_and (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have put this page at Leaky bucket/rewrite that addresses the problems with this page, i.e. that it mostly talks about one of the two competing versions. Graham Fountain 15:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Subpages are not enabled in articlespace, unlike user and talk spaces. I have moved the draft to Talk:Leaky bucket/rewrite. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Problems with this Article 

message: The leaky bucket/rewrite page, having received no adverse comments has been used to overwrite the existing leaky bucket page Graham Fountain 12:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of page 

message: Just wondering if anyone knows why this article has got relatively low ratings for trustworthy and complete.
Graham.Fountain | Talk 14:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Ratings