[e2e] Why don't we talk about segments/objects instaead of layers? Re: Lost Layer?

Andrew Mcgregor andrewmcgr at google.com
Wed Feb 19 13:54:33 PST 2014

The best attempt at that so far as I know is "Joseph Hui and Ezhan Karasan, A
Thermodynamic Theory of Broadband Networks with Application to Dynamic
Routing, IEEE J. Selected Areas of Communications, 1995, v13 pp 991--1003".
 It works, but isn't as illuminating as some of the more recent work, using
new mathematics to help.  Keyword for that is 'network calculus'.

On 20 February 2014 07:46, <l.wood at surrey.ac.uk> wrote:

> look at Fred Soddy's criticisms of economics, based on his modelling of
> physical systems and use of entropy and thermodynamics.
> congestion can be seen as heat being introduced into a physical system.
> routers and gateways are basically Maxwell's Demon. discards are lowering
> to ground state.
> if we're going to play analogies, let's use the physical universe for the
> analogy. refute THAT.
> someone must have had this thought already. would appreciate pointers to
> the literature.
> thanks
> Lloyd Wood
> http://about.me/lloydwood
> ________________________________________
> From: end2end-interest-bounces at postel.org [
> end2end-interest-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Detlef Bosau [
> detlef.bosau at web.de]
> Sent: 18 February 2014 19:39
> To: dpreed at reed.com
> Cc: Ralph A. Schmid, dk5ras; end2end-interest at postel.org; Lars Wolf
> Subject: Re: [e2e] Why don't we talk about segments/objects instaead of
> layers? Re: Lost Layer?
> Am 18.02.2014 19:00, schrieb dpreed at reed.com:
> > Well, if you compare economics (barely a science, but only when it
> actually allows data to disconfirm hypotheses, which almost never happens)
> with queueing theory and control theory, I cannot refute you.
> You cannot refute queueing theory and control theory. (Listen to
> yourself ;-) You quite often do EXACTLY this ;-))
> However, the question is whether these two apply to computer networks.
> You told us more than once that we have hardly realistic models for user
> behaviour. (We know how to model Monsieur Poisson and Andrej Andrejewich
> Markov - however, how do we model the rest of the world?) Than all these
> theories assume potentially infinite buffers.
> And for control theory: If you really want to apply system theory here
> (you did not appreciate my thoughts in this direction in some off list
> discussions) you are in the need of a model.
> No problem: The packets are the "energy": packets on the fly (links) are
> "kinetic energy", packets in queues are "power", the state variables are
> buffer queues (which are limited in real life) and links (the transport
> capacity of which is HIGHLY volatile as we discussed in many details) ,
> in addition: Which state variables are to be taken into consideration?
> (Of course the links and buffers along the path, unfortunately, this may
> change.)
> VJ even talks about a "Ljapunov function" which is actually ludicrous.
> The concept of Ljapunov stability intends wo make a system behave close
> to a given trajectory in state space. How do we apply this concept to a
> flow where we cannot even agree upon the state variables in charge.
> Yes, you cannot refute queuing theory and control theory.
> But applying these to a model, where they do not apply is hand waving
> with formulae.
> And that's exactly what you often refuse when being done by others ;-)

Andrew McGregor | SRE | andrewmcgr at google.com | +61 4 1071 2221

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list