North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Selfish routing
You know, Iron Chef references making it in to routing discussion, what a great world we live in! ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email protected]> Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 1:59 PM Subject: Re: Selfish routing > > > > > > > Make optimal path have more capacity. > > > > If your lead time for ordering circuits is <1 day and your cost for excess > > bandwidth is zero, that's certainly a viable strategy. Most of us, even > > facilities-based carriers, don't live in that dreamland. > > No, it takes me 60 days to get approval to order a circuit which wont be > delivered for another 90 days, and somehow I have no problem with it > consulting for non-facilities based carriers. > > The reason for the problem is that there are people at the facilities based > carriers that have no interest in saving the money and making their network > more flexible, largely due to constant hand-greasing from the sales people > those who are selling them equipment to make marginal improvements in their > very broken networks. > > No backbone ever should have congestion inside itself, and no backbone ever > gets to control someone else's network. This is the fundamentals of the > business case at hand, which cannot and should not be redefined. So figure > out how to > > (a) not have congestion inside the backbone itself > > (b) not have congestion on the interconnects > > > Please distinguish between startups desperately marketing OSPF under a > > trademark, and tier 1 carriers who use _significantly different_ routing > > strategies and won't even acknowledge it without an NDA. > > The problem with tier-1 carriers is that their networks are a mess since too > many of them have too many buyers that get too much gooey stuff stuck to > their hands for buying overpriced and wrong gear and services. > > > A carrier can't exercise fine-grained control over what traffic levels > > their peers/customers/upstreams send them, but it is possible to react in > > real-time to varying traffic levels and prevent congestion (within your > > own network) from flash crowds, link outages, peer flaps, etc. > > Business case requirement (a) - your internal outages should not cause your > backbone links to overflow, especially if you claim to be a tier-1 carrier. > If it does, you do not have (a) requirement met, so solving any other issues > is a waste of time. > > > Capcity, even in our current bandwidth glut, is expensive. If you can > > maintain the same performance level with less capacity, you keep more > > profits at the end of the day -- and that's the real goal, not design > > purity. > > Rubbish again. > > Capacity (both longhaul and short haul) and bandwidth is cheap for the > companies. However, if the buyers actually push sellers, the sellers won't > have a reason to take buyers to Morrimotto's, give them Louis Vuitton > handbags and give them SuperBowl tickets. > > Alex > >
|