[e2e] Question the other way round:
richard at bennett.com
Wed Nov 20 15:58:07 PST 2013
Before the IP hegemony took hold, corporate and other private networks
used to deal with congested interior links by sending low priority
traffic over less optimal paths that had some excess capacity rather
than by dropping packets. We called this system "dynamic load
balancing". I don't think it's ever been popular with the Internet crowd.
On 11/20/2013 3:04 PM, Ted Faber wrote:
> On 11/20/2013 14:50, Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0) wrote:
>>> It's the same old thing. Pre-book your resources and underuse them or
>>> overbook and deal with contention.
>> The Airlines overbook all the time. Hopefully I am not the one dealing
>> with the contention. Usually someone else is willing to get paid off -
>> their time value is apparently less then mine. So here is an economics
> Exactly so. It can be illuminating to apply networking solutions to
> those kinds of resources. If the airlines used leaky buckets to decide
> which flyers to bump, bursty flyers would be discriminated against.
> Thinking about airlines is nice in that it does give the flavor of some
> network congestion issues. For example, an airline might choose to
> offer people with more connections more money to drop out of the system
> early in the hopes of reducing overall contention. I'm sure you can
> think of more.
> The Internet is more interesting in that there are many more legs and
> passengers and much less information at a given airport about where the
> passengers are going. And that's just drop policy, which is a corner of
> the congestion control problem.
Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy
Editor, High Tech Forum
(408) 829-4944 (mobile)
(415) 967-2900 (office)
More information about the end2end-interest