Re: [RAM] The mapping problem: rendezvous points?

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

Dave,

> I agree there are hybrid cases possible, but what I was saying is  
> not a
> hybrid at all.
>
> In hybrid schemes it comes down to whether there is any case of "slow"
> or not.
>
> For example, in one class of hybrid schemes:
>
> PUSH is used to get log(N) information such that any packet can be
> immedidately forwarded upon arrival, and PULL is used in parallel to
> forwarding to obtain a more optimal destination for future traffic.
> This one is not problematic.


Since the first packet is forwarded with suboptimal information,  
there will be a certain amount of additional stretch.  In addition,  
when the optimal information arrives, the change in path can  
potentially cause packet reordering, which is definitely problematic  
for a variety of applications, as well as triggering slow start.


> PUSH is used to get some information, but there remain cases where
> a packet can arrive and PULL must be used before the packet can be
> forwarded (i.e. encapsulated) somewhere.  This one is problematic
> for the same reason as PULL.
>
> So as long as a hybrid is PUSH (not everything) with PULL _as an
> optimization_, I claim it's better than where PULL is _a necessity_  
> and
> PUSH is just an optimization.


I think that your claim is equivalent to saying that you prefer  
initial sub-optimality to initial latency.  I'm not yet convinced by  
this.  If the mapping client is in fact the host, it would seem that  
we could mask any initial latency.

Tony

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram