Hi,
I have this question to which I have not been able to get a conclusive
answer (I have heard different things).
When an ISP buys a router does it want a worst-case guarantee about the
router's capabilities? Or will it buy a router which can give better
performance in the average case (it may drop some packets if the traffic
pattern changes suddenly)? Assuming both cost the same.
Could you please give your opinion?
Harsha.
When an ISP buys a router does it want a worst-case guarantee about the
router's capabilities? Or will it buy a router which can give better
performance in the average case (it may drop some packets if the traffic
pattern changes suddenly)? Assuming both cost the same.
Worst case guarantee is necessary in many cases. Easy example:
A router that can handle an STM-1 of regular Internet traffic is worthless
to us if it dies in the face of an STM-1 with minimum sized attack traffic.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
:
: > When an ISP buys a router does it want a worst-case guarantee about the
: > router's capabilities? Or will it buy a router which can give better
: > performance in the average case (it may drop some packets if the traffic
: > pattern changes suddenly)? Assuming both cost the same.
:
: Worst case guarantee is necessary in many cases. Easy example:
:
: A router that can handle an STM-1 of regular Internet traffic is worthless
: to us if it dies in the face of an STM-1 with minimum sized attack traffic.
:
Perhaps we can generalize this by pointing out the dearth of SLA's based
upon average-case.
Mark