[167328] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Caps (was Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Crocker)
Mon Dec 9 00:35:46 2013
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 21:34:19 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
To: Phil Karn <karn@philkarn.net>, mark@amplex.net
In-Reply-To: <52A53F3D.6040007@philkarn.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 12/8/2013 7:55 PM, Phil Karn wrote:
> It costs you nothing to let people use capacity that would otherwise go
> to waste, and it increases the perceived value of your service.
Sometimes, yes. Othertimes, perhaps not.
I seem to recall an early bit of research on interactive computing
(maybe by Sackman) that showed user preference for a /worse/ average
response time that was more predictable (narrower range of variance)
than a better average time that was more erratic.
So, stability over throughput, sort of.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
