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

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Wed, 09 May 2007 16:40 UTC

Return-path: <ram-bounces@iab.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlpD3-0003qH-5w; Wed, 09 May 2007 12:40:13 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlpD1-0003qC-K8 for ram@iab.org; Wed, 09 May 2007 12:40:11 -0400
Received: from ns.virtualized.org ([204.152.189.134] helo=mail.virtualized.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlpD0-0002I3-7M for ram@iab.org; Wed, 09 May 2007 12:40:11 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ns.virtualized.org [204.152.189.134]) by mail.virtualized.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id l49GOCHT070062; Wed, 9 May 2007 09:24:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drc@virtualized.org)
In-Reply-To: <4641F33B.4070103@cisco.com>
References: <8F47F550-6224-4AFF-8359-CBA98D3F2FAB@muada.com> <271CF87FD652F34DBF877CB0CB5D16FC054EA470@WIN-MSG-21.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <9C228355-9425-4C66-A9A7-47498490E3B1@virtualized.org> <271CF87FD652F34DBF877CB0CB5D16FC054EA59D@WIN-MSG-21.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <86588E66-ACED-4DD2-B286-3DA5B2518B1A@virtualized.org> <4641750A.9010906@cisco.com> <283D52E5-AD3A-40FA-B81C-27DD950176CA@virtualized.org> <4641F33B.4070103@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <2CB91D98-4CA3-4F4E-A2F6-CFEF5E04C0DB@virtualized.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Subject: Re: [RAM] The mapping problem: rendezvous points?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 09:39:58 -0700
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
Cc: ram@iab.org
X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List <ram.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ram>
List-Post: <mailto:ram@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org

Eliot,

On May 9, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I feel like we've had this argument before.

Yep.  You and others keep asserting that a pull-based mapping  
distribution model is a "non-starter" because it "won't work".  I've  
been trying to get from folks _concrete_ examples of applications  
that "won't work" in the face of increased latencies on the order of  
10s or 100s of milliseconds after a cache miss.  In response I get  
vague handwaving about voice or video (I know from personal  
experience that UDP-based NFS works fine in the face of an initial  
packet delay of 10s of milliseconds) or descriptions about classes of  
applications that would appear to be degenerate cases and asymmetric  
routing that would likely have unpredictable performance  
characteristics with pull or push.

GIven the lack of data, it would seem we've descended to the realm of  
religion, so I'll give it a rest.

Rgds,
-drc


_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM@iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram