RE: Executive summary of: RE: hard questions: request routing

["Dmitri Krioukov" <dima@krioukov.net>]

I see the point about consensus but I don't see why
something without deep semantics (like number of CDN
hops (ala RIP metric)) has not been considered as
"obtainium" :) Oliver's p.1 is just a specific
case with infinity equal to 2 then.
--
dima.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cdn@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-cdn@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> Mark Day
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 10:42 AM
> To: Dmitri Krioukov; Oliver Spatscheck
> Cc: cdn@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Executive summary of: RE: hard questions: request routing
>
>
> > I missed the point when the metric was dismissed, though :(
>
> I haven't yet seen any convergence on what the single common metric would
> be. I tend toward agreement with Oliver's summary that we seem to have
> implicitly dismissed that by our inability to determine the metric.
>
> The single common metric seems to be an example of what my aerospace
> colleagues refer to as "unobtainium" -- a wonderful substance
> with all sorts
> of great properties, which unfortunately doesn't exist.
>
> While it can be useful to do unobtainium-based exercises, at some
> point you
> have to start translating those designs into realizable ones.  Unless
> someone believes that we actually approached rough consensus on a single
> underlying metric and I missed it (which is quite possible!), I'm inclined
> to say that we have spent enough time on architectures that depend on this
> particular form of unobtainium.
>
> --Mark
>