Re: VCC cost models
Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com> Thu, 02 May 1996 05:27 UTC
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09218; 2 May 96 1:27 EDT
Received: from guelah.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09214; 2 May 96 1:27 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 BAA09424; Thu, 2 May 1996 01:17:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) id BAA29083 for rolc-out; Thu, 2 May 1996 01:14:03 -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 BAA29074 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Thu, 2 May 1996 01:13:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from foxhound.cisco.com (foxhound.cisco.com [171.69.1.171]) by nexen.nexen.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA11534 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Thu, 2 May 1996 01:13:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (kzm@localhost) by foxhound.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/8.6.5) id WAA12145; Wed, 1 May 1996 22:13:18 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <199605020513.WAA12145@foxhound.cisco.com>
Subject: Re: VCC cost models
To: Andrew Smith <fddi1-ncd@baynetworks.com>
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 22:13:17 -0700
Cc: gray@ctron.com, rolc@nexen.com
In-Reply-To: <9605011744.AA00564@milliways-le0.engwest> from "Andrew Smith" at May 1, 96 10:44:18 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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/
> 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 :-) I still don't see how the use of an edge device is relevant here. An edge device is one part of a (distributed) routing entity. If "policy enforced by routing entities" is the right approach, then that approach is still "right" when the routing entity is distributed across a route server and multiple edge devices. Keith.
- Re: VCC cost models Andrew Smith
- Re: VCC cost models Andrew Smith
- Re: VCC cost models Keith McCloghrie