[57919] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Selfish routing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barney Wolff)
Sat Apr 26 23:36:30 2003
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 23:35:18 -0400
From: Barney Wolff <barney@pit.databus.com>
To: Mike Lloyd <drmike@routescience.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <3EAB461F.9050408@routescience.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 07:53:19PM -0700, Mike Lloyd wrote:
>
> >Selfish routing is the simplest and cheapest to implement, which are large
> >factors in evaluating the "best" dumb network.
>
> Simpler than a God of TE in the middle of the network, but not simplest.
> What we have today is about the simplest, and it's not what
> Roughgarden means by "selfish" routing. He assumes routing which
> promptly responds to congestion-induced latency, and that is not
> automated in much of the Internet today. It's also not simple to
> implement correctly.
>
> The technology is available, and a perennial question (which Sean
> Donelan referred to at least obliquely at the start of this thread) is
> whether it's better to use smarter routing decisions, to add more
> bandwidth, or to just leave things as they are. Since we're awash in
> bandwidth we can't find enough uses for, and some users remain
> dissatisfied, it's nice to see academic results that suggest option one
> is (theoretically) effective.
Er, nothing in the paper said anything at all about the performance of
latency-influenced routing vs other, presumably dumber, schemes. Other
papers, maybe? References?
--
Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf
I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.
