Re: Selfish routing

["Scott Granados" <scott () wworks net>]

You know, Iron Chef references making it in to routing discussion, what a
great world we live in!


----- Original Message -----
From: <alex () yuriev com>
To: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen () sprunk org>
Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <nanog () merit edu>
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