Selfish routing

alex at alex at
Sun Apr 27 20:59:27 UTC 2003

> >
> > Make optimal path have more capacity.
> If your lead time for ordering circuits is <1 day and your cost for excess
> bandwidth is zero, that's certainly a viable strategy.  Most of us, even
> facilities-based carriers, don't live in that dreamland.

No, it takes me 60 days to get approval to order a circuit which wont be
delivered for another 90 days, and somehow I have no problem with it
consulting for non-facilities based carriers.

The reason for the problem is that there are people at the facilities based
carriers that have no interest in saving the money and making their network
more flexible, largely due to constant hand-greasing from the sales people
those who are selling them equipment to make marginal improvements in their
very broken networks.

No backbone ever should have congestion inside itself, and no backbone ever
gets to control someone else's network. This is the fundamentals of the
business case at hand, which cannot and should not be redefined. So figure
out how to 

	(a) not have congestion inside the backbone itself

	(b) not have congestion on the interconnects

> Please distinguish between startups desperately marketing OSPF under a
> trademark, and tier 1 carriers who use _significantly different_ routing
> strategies and won't even acknowledge it without an NDA.

The problem with tier-1 carriers is that their networks are a mess since too
many of them have too many buyers that get too much gooey stuff stuck to
their hands for buying overpriced and wrong gear and services.

> A carrier can't exercise fine-grained control over what traffic levels
> their peers/customers/upstreams send them, but it is possible to react in
> real-time to varying traffic levels and prevent congestion (within your
> own network) from flash crowds, link outages, peer flaps, etc.

Business case requirement (a) - your internal outages should not cause your
backbone links to overflow, especially if you claim to be a tier-1 carrier.
If it does, you do not have (a) requirement met, so solving any other issues
is a waste of time.

> Capcity, even in our current bandwidth glut, is expensive.  If you can
> maintain the same performance level with less capacity, you keep more
> profits at the end of the day -- and that's the real goal, not design
> purity.

Rubbish again.

Capacity (both longhaul and short haul) and bandwidth is cheap for the
companies. However, if the buyers actually push sellers, the sellers won't
have a reason to take buyers to Morrimotto's, give them Louis Vuitton
handbags and give them SuperBowl tickets.


More information about the NANOG mailing list