Re: Question the other way round:
Joe Touch <[email protected]> Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:25:05 -0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.end2end |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 11/19/2013 11:59 AM, Richard Bennett wrote: > Admission Control is pro-active in the same way that circuits are, as is > differential provisioning. I'm not sure I agree; packet-based admission control is statistically similar to circuit switching, but can still statistically fail. > Last mile broadband connections in the US > have an average capacity of 30 Mbps while aggregation and transit links > are much fatter, but the differential isn't enough to prevent congestion. That's why it's not the same as circuits. Joe > > On 11/19/2013 10:34 AM, Joe Touch wrote: >> >> >> On 11/19/2013 10:23 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>> On 11/19/2013 10:15 AM, Joe Touch wrote: >>>> I.e., the opening sentence assumes that all congestion control is >>>> reactive. It can be proactive given the right information. >>> >>> >>> Proactive would be nice. We should put more effort into /creating/ >>> congestion. Oh wait... >> >> Circuits are proactive (when everyone uses them) - you indicate your >> needs in advance, and you use / don't use them based on the advance >> reservation. >> >> Joe >> >