|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Selfish routing
> > [email protected] wrote: > > >>But curiously, adding some > > >>incremental capacity to a network can, under some conditions, actually > > >>make it worse! > > > > > >Oh, rubbish. > > To alex: It's not necessary to add a tiny link to the network > to make things worse. In fact, the actual Braess Paradox example > that roughgarden uses arises from the addition of a high-capacity, > low-latency link in the wrong place. It presumes the existence of > a smaller capacity path through the network somewhere, but are you > arguing that those paths don't exist? I can show you a lot of them, > since it's what my software (the aforementioned MIT RON project) is > designed to exploit. The Internet is full of weird, unexpected paths > when you start routing in ways that the network designers didn't intend. > And that's what selfish routing _does_. To those who really dont get what I am saying: If you do not have enough capacity, the selfish or non-selfish routing does ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ not matter. ^^^^^^^^^^ 99.99999% of network problems are caused by CAPACITY issues be that packet loss, or routers incapable of dealing with the traffic. Addressing 0.00001% of problems caused by selfish routing is not going to make it better. Address the issues that cause 99.99999% of the problems before addressing 0.00001% Alex
|