> I had a general statement about scaling in the wg slides, and I recall
> Alex objecting that in general the IETF avoids quantitative values.
I object to the objection. ;-)
Without a quantitative goal, we're left arguing in a vacuum about what the
real requirements are and whether they can be met. To understand the
solution space, we need to understand the problem, and since this clearly
includes scaling, we need to understand our scaling goals.
I'll point out that there is precedent for quantitative work. For example,
when we were discussing IPng, we definitely set goals for the number of
hosts and number of networks to be supported.
Alex, could we please get some reconsideration here?
> I propose that we discuss a parameteric model, e.g., Number of nodes
> (N), total number of Links (L), some range of Component links per
> Composite (C(i)), frequency of latency changes (L), frequency of
> capacity changes, etc. and try to compare the "scalability" and
> "response time" in a parametric way. Then, outside of the IETF,
> quantitative numbers could be inserted.
I agree with the general approach. There are lots of different link
characteristics that we carry and I'm wondering if we can generalize and
just carry the frequency of change of link characteristics. This is so we
don't drown in our own model.
rtgwg mailing list