RE: BIRD vs Quagga

["Tomas L. Byrnes" <tomb () byrneit net>]

Good point regarding non-congruence not necessarily meaning non-separation, and touché on margins (by which I presume 
you mean SS7 has massive overprovisionining for average traffic). 

However, the fact remains, it has proven itself to work for a lot longer, and a for much larger subscriber base, with 
far fewer systemic failures (especially on a per subscriber/expected availability basis), than the current Internet.

I notice you didn't answer my request for the peer reviewed literature to support your assertion.

To support mine I give (there are hundreds in the literature):

Gopel (Nokia): HSN and Multimedia Apps, 5th Conf, IEEE, 2002: Print ISBN: 0-7803-7600-5 PP 161-166

Ramjee et al (Lucent Bell Labs): Comsware 2006: Print ISBN: 0-7803-9575-1 PP 1-10

Khalios et al (City College of NY): IEEE Globecom 2003: Print ISBN: 0-7803-7974-8 PP 3984-3989

Never mind all of Shannon's work and everything bell labs did in developing digital switching.

You can always have control traffic follow the same path in a different channel, so you get the same effect of physical 
interruption, and therefore the topography alerting of an interrupted link, without the issues of pathological traffic 
in the bearer channel interrupting your control traffic (as with ISDN subscriber trunks).



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy () psg com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:56 PM
> To: Tomas L. Byrnes
> Cc: Nick Hilliard; NANOG list
> Subject: Re: BIRD vs Quagga
>
> > As in SS7, which has successfully managed the phone system for
> > decades, where the control and data plane are explicitly separated?
>
> and has such wonderful margins
>
> and, btw, separation is not necessarily non-congruence