Re: [RRG] RRG process clarification

[Peter Sherbin <pesherb@yahoo.com>]

> Consideration of economic principles is, IMVHO, important
> to arrive at the right theory. 

Christian, yes economics are important and, IMO, the basic directional guidelines to the implementers should come from the designers. E.g. economic questions persistently surface on various IETF lists (see the latest p2p workshop announcement) while officially IETF does not comment on such. RRG seem to have more leniency here but firstly RRG may want to have a consensus on whether economics become a part of the discussion. On my side I would be glad to discuss on and/or off list, whichever helps.

Thanks, Peter.

--- On Sun, 4/20/08, Christian Vogt <christian.vogt@nomadiclab.com> wrote:

> From: Christian Vogt <christian.vogt@nomadiclab.com>
> Subject: Re: [RRG] RRG process clarification
> To: pesherb@yahoo.com
> Cc: "Lixia Zhang" <lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU>, "Routing Research Group Mailing List" <rrg@psg.com>
> Date: Sunday, April 20, 2008, 2:43 PM
> > As to the guiding economic principle(s) it is just nice
> to have. It  
> > will become obvious from the "correct"
> theory anyway and we can drop  
> > this subject completely if it helps to speed up the
> discussion.
> 
> Peter,
> 
> you have a number of important points.  Thanks for sharing
> them.
> 
> Your statement cited above, however, is one that I
> don't agree
> with.  Consideration of economic principles is, IMVHO,
> important
> to arrive at the right theory.  If we omit this, we risk
> ending
> up with the wrong theory which will eventually turn into a
> protocol that people are reluctant to deploy -- not for
> technical
> or backwards compatibility reasons, but for economic
> reasons.
> 
> One example where, I believe, consideration of economics is
> due
> is the question of who should select the ingress link of an
> edge
> network (a related thread on this list).  Letting the
> sender of a
> packet select the remote ingress link (by letting it select
> the
> destination transit address) would certainly be an approach
> that
> is technically viable, but it would be opposite to the
> economic
> view that the receiver, who pays for its ingress link,
> should be
> able to control which one is used.
> 
> - Christian
> 
> 
> 
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with
> the
> word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message
> text body.
> archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> &
> ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg