Re: testing
Jon Crowcroft <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.end2end |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
see Lexicon by Max Berry for a novel with non-abrhamic references for Babel (see also Jorge Luis Borges for library of babel (and lottery of babylon) stories that give you some scope and range bounds on the price of anarchy and the cost of over organisation, respectively... In missive <CAPRcfR-sUdqq2UZgK-ywwc2zDeYUcggtMP3TvBQ=RSmiMWSdCQ@mail.gmail.com>, Djamel Sadok ty ped: >>Hi, >> >>What percentage of those who bought a ticket to a show went on to discuss >>this on a twitter or other social page later on? >> >>A transport provider may agree to increase QoS (bandwidth share) for a >>video streaming service (an end-to-end service) if it could include some >>advertising material in real time from a third party (the result is a >>none2e composed service). >> >>Both scenarios show that a non-e2e service is required and gives value >>added information or new business model. >> >>My question is: can we think of interesting services that cannot be met by >>e2e network operation? note that the scope is that of a networking. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Djamel >> >> >> >> >> >>On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 7:58 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Why should they be differentiated? (I'm not denying that they could be, >>> but "should" is a different matter). >>> >>> >>> >>> Also, I would suggest that when SDN's are used to balkanize networks, that >>> has little to do with "internetworking". Remember "internetworking" is >>> different from "networking" in a fundamental way. If you have any >>> background in Abrahamic religions, the Tower of Babel is a relevant >>> metaphor to think with (I use that only because I don't know if non >>> Abrahamic religions have traditions that consider the many problems of >>> non-interoperation as key issues). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, September 6, 2013 7:01am, "Djamel Sadok" <[email protected]> >>> said: >>> >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > We could think that in the future we could have e2e subnets and non e2e >>> > subnets such as ICNs living side by side sharing the same infra-structure >>> > in a virtualized SDN world. Can we think of services that use one >>> paradigm >>> > or both? >>> > >>> > Djamel >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > > please ignore >>> > > >>> > >>> cheers jon