Subject: Re: controlled load overload (was: Re: Concerns about exported numbers)

From: [email-masked] (Fred Baker)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 08:39:48 -0800

At 1:56 AM 1/22/96, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>but surely its easier than this....sureally the Internet should _only_
>provide controled load, and those that do RSVP get the guarantee plus
>drop service model, and those that don;t get the guarantee + delay service
>model (under congestion as defined for the proportion of the capacity
>allocated to each service class...)?

this doesn't quite work. let me give you a case in point.

We (and anyone else who does SNA/TCP) put many SNA sessions in a single TCP
session. We would like to advance the effective priority of that TCP
session so that each of the SNA sessions, statistically, is weighted the
same as one of the other best effort sessions that ARE visible at the link
layer. So we would like to have a simple means to negotiate that.

SNA doesn't need a particular bandwidth, it just needs stability. So asking
for a particular bandwidth is not really the point. I would happily ask for
zero bandwidth (or nearly so) and a large burst size. But what I really
want (and may wind up doing a proprietary flow spec to get) is some simple
thing that says "this contains N distinct best effort flows, treat it
exactly so".

In that case, I would be using RSVP to tune the guarantee+delay model.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Suppose you were an idiot.  And suppose you were a [politician].
But I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain