Abstract
Saha, Mukherjee, and Tripathi (see ibid., vol.6, no.6, p.779-796, 1998) present and analyze an ATM cell scheduling algorithm called carry-over round robin. Unfortunately, one of the basic lemmas in their paper, related to the performance of this algorithm, does not hold. This adversely affects the delay and fairness properties that they subsequently derive. To substantiate this, we describe carry-over round robin and present a counterexample to the lemma. We end with some concluding remarks.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
