Selfish routing

Sun Apr 27 03:35:18 UTC 2003

On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 07:53:19PM -0700, Mike Lloyd wrote:
> 
> >Selfish routing is the simplest and cheapest to implement, which are large
> >factors in evaluating the "best" dumb network.
> 
> Simpler than a God of TE in the middle of the network, but not simplest. 
>  What we have today is about the simplest, and it's not what 
> Roughgarden means by "selfish" routing.  He assumes routing which 
> promptly responds to congestion-induced latency, and that is not 
> automated in much of the Internet today.  It's also not simple to 
> implement correctly.
> 
> The technology is available, and a perennial question (which Sean 
> Donelan referred to at least obliquely at the start of this thread) is 
> whether it's better to use smarter routing decisions, to add more 
> bandwidth, or to just leave things as they are.  Since we're awash in 
> bandwidth we can't find enough uses for, and some users remain 
> dissatisfied, it's nice to see academic results that suggest option one 
> is (theoretically) effective.

Er, nothing in the paper said anything at all about the performance of
latency-influenced routing vs other, presumably dumber, schemes.  Other
papers, maybe?  References?

-- 
Barney Wolff         http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf
I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.