Re: Average case performance vs. Worst-case guarantee
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
An entity claiming to be sthaug@nethelp.no (sthaug@nethelp.no) wrote: : : > 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 -- [] Mark 'Doc' Rogaski | Guess what? I got a fever! And the only [] wendigo@pobox.com | prescription ... is more cowbell! [] 1994 Suzuki GS500ER | -- Christopher Walken (as Bruce Dickinson) [] 1975 Yamaha RD250B |
participants (2)
-
Mark Rogaski -
sthaug＠nethelp.no