I understand that the 0.2% number comes from the ITU, and is
significant for the protocol choice.
However, characterizing IP networks with reliabilities above that as
"extremely reliable and overprovisioned" seems a very odd
characterization. And that kind of debate simply does not belong in
this document.
Yours,
Joel
At 02:00 AM 9/4/2006, Yaakov Stein wrote:
moderate: The paragraph on SAToP in section 2.seems to characterize a
loss rate of one fifth of one percent as an "extremely reliable and
overprovisioned PSN." While I do not want to get in to an argument
about what is acceptable, it is to be noted that even TCP will have
performance problems with a link with a 0.2% loss rate. ISPs with
loss rates much lower than that are still not usually referred to as
"extremely reliable." I would recommend simply removing the sentence.
[YJS] This number come up from two sources.
1) documents presented to the ITU question that worked in parallel
to PWE3 showing that this is indeed a kind of dividing line between
well-engineered networks and best-effort ones.
2) empirical results that the user experience of circuit emulation
with AIS substitiution drops at this level (see
draft-stein-pwe3-tdm-packetloss-01.txt
now expired).
In any case, we are continually asked to characterize when to
stop using SAToP and go over to one of the structure-aware methods.
This is as good a break-point as any.
For these reasons I would suggest keeping this sentence.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
