Re: VCC cost models

Andrew Smith <fddi1-ncd@baynetworks.com> Wed, 01 May 1996 17:56 UTC

Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23220; 1 May 96 13:56 EDT
Received: from guelah.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23215; 1 May 96 13:56 EDT
Received: from maelstrom.nexen.com (maelstrom.nexen.com [204.249.97.5]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA06388; Wed, 1 May 1996 13:46:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA23095 for rolc-out; Wed, 1 May 1996 13:46:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from nexen.nexen.com (nexen.nexen.com [204.249.96.18]) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA23086 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Wed, 1 May 1996 13:45:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lightning.synoptics.com (lightning.synoptics.com [134.177.3.18]) by nexen.nexen.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA29294 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Wed, 1 May 1996 13:45:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from pobox ([134.177.1.95]) by lightning.synoptics.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA29798; Wed, 1 May 96 10:45:51 PDT
Received: from milliways-le0.engwest by pobox (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA29466; Wed, 1 May 96 10:44:20 PDT
Received: by milliways-le0.engwest (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00564; Wed, 1 May 96 10:44:18 PDT
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 10:44:18 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Andrew Smith <fddi1-ncd@baynetworks.com>
Message-Id: <9605011744.AA00564@milliways-le0.engwest>
To: gray@ctron.com
Subject: Re: VCC cost models
Cc: rolc@nexen.com
X-Orig-Sender: owner-rolc@nexen.com
Precedence: bulk
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe to rolc-request@nexen.com, submissions to rolc@nexen.com
X-Info: Email archive at ftp://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/ietf-mail-archive/rolc/
X-Info: Hypermail archive at http://cell-relay.indiana.edu/mail/archives/rolc/
X-Info: FTP archive at ftp://ftp.nexen.com/pub/rolc/

> From owner-rolc@nexen.com Wed May  1 09:37:36 1996
> Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 12:25:12 -0400
> From: "Eric W. Gray" <gray@ctron.com>
> Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.
> To: Grenville Armitage <gja@bellcore.com>
> Cc: rolc@nexen.com
> Subject: Re: VCC cost models .... (was Re: Limits on SVCCs) 

Eric,

> What about those cases where ATM attachment point is an edge device?  Do you
> think it's a good idea to introduce user-feedback loop complexity between the
> edge device and the non-ATM host(s) it represents?  Would you propose that a
> pop-up window should appear on a network manager's work-station in such cases?

I think that edge devices are not relevant in the (big-I) Internet scenario.

In the campus environment, the cost model is less important and would not need 
user feedback. Policy enforced by the routing entities should be the right approach 
here as they have the best idea of the current resource state (i.e. relative
cost of VCCs vs. hop-by-hop). 

But this is the ROLC list so I guess we should focus on big-I, not campus: I'll
take my anti-edge-device crusade elsewhere :-)

> Do you imagine that any user wants to be bothered with a pop-up window (or
> other "confirmation" query) for every potential shortcut connection?
> 
> My point was that the right place to make the decision to allow for a short-
> cut is most often in the network (not the host).  A very likely approach to
> doing this is through policy decisions made by network nodes (whether these
> are switches, routers or NHSs) and - for those instances where dialogue with
> a user is desirable - the policy may be to seek confirmation from the user.

In the big-I Internet, I'm not sure that a policy-based decision is good enough.
That's what makes me sceptical about the utility of short-cut VCCs in the 
Internet.


Andrew


********************************************************************************
Andrew Smith					TEL:	+1 408 764 1574
Bay Networks, Inc. 				FAX:	+1 408 988 5525
Santa Clara, CA					E-m:	asmith@baynetworks.com
********************************************************************************