30 Jul
2019
30 Jul
'19
2:33 a.m.
On 2019-07-30 01:58, Paul Koning wrote:
Thanks. It's an attempt at something that tries to make sense anyway.
On Jul 28, 2019, at 9:31 AM, Johnny Billquist
<bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
People, I have written a page about DECnet costs and HECnet costs, which I would
recommend that anyone interested read through. It contains a bit of elaboration on how
DECnet does routing, and gives some suggestions on how costs could be set on HECnet to
make it perform better.
I have noticed over the years that sometimes we do get really silly routing decisions
just because of how people set, or do not set costs. The page I've written is by no
means perfect, nor are the suggestions in there. But feel free to come with feedback, or
ignore it. But I am going to try and use this myself more properly from now on, and that
means that if others don't, you probably are going to get more traffic through your
nodes. Traffic that probably do not make sense that it passes through you, but I just feel
that I prefer to try and make it work right from my point of view, and then just at least
tell people how I worked my numbers out. If someone have a different idea, I'm open to
changing my settings, but I will not try and do optimizations to achieve:
a) Same paths for packets in both directions - DECnet explicitly does not do this.
b) Specifically penalize one type of interface because of any subjective preference about
that type of interface in general.
Oh - and the link to my writeup: http://mim.update.uu.se/costs.htm
That sounds like a good proposal. The comment about routes not necessarily matching in
the other direction: that's potentially true for any hop by hop routed protocol.
It's pretty much unavoidable if you have hierarchical routing because the information
available isn't the same in the two directions. It also doesn't matter. If the
cost assignments are reasonable, then the routes will be, and asymmetry is utterly
irrelevant.
Right.
The proposal doesn't address links that don't
carry IP traffic, such as actual DEC hardware -- DMC-11 links, or async DDCMP, etc. For
those I suggest adding in the delay for a standard large packet (570 bytes) given the
performance of the nodes and the link speed. For example, a 9600 baud DDCMP link would
have a latency for that packet size of just under 600 ms, so its cost would be 30 by your
formula. That's not actually legal so the max permitted cost would apply (25). For
fast links like coax DMC-11 or DEUNA the wire delay is a few ms or better, so the latency
contribution would be 1 by your formula; given the machine performance a slight increase
might be justified.
Good point. I tend to forget/ignore non-ethernet actual links.
I think a reasonably high cost should be applied, since most of the time
those links would not be the preferred path if multiple paths do exist.
But something like 30 seems excessive. Somewhere around 10 would be
reasonable enough, I would think.
The cost of 1 for a local ethernet is my basic assumption, which also
then ends up as 3, with the added tax for a node. Which, by accident (
;-) ) turns out to be exactly the cost of an ethernet circuit by default
on RSX.
That makes me wonder: you mention adding in 2
"for the node". Maybe that should be a bit larger for slow nodes.
Yes. It probably should be. I have not tried to quantify "slow nodes",
but instead just suggested that nodes which persons don't want (or think
it is undesireable) to have traffic through, should add one or two more
to the cost for it's circuits.
That should make them not the usual pick for a path, but they are still
an option if nothing else is around.
Than again, the best answer is to do something that
seems reasonable and observe what happens; fine tuning is best done with empirical data.
Certainly. I think people should experiment and tweak things a little,
if they think it makes sense. But usually not reducing it below the
numbers I suggest, but adding a little to affect things certainly makes
sense sometimes. But again, also, this is just suggestions.
People are free to disregard this. It probably will make the whole
network perform a little worse for some people, but that is just a guess
on my part, and I do not believe in me dictating anything more than the
absolute minimum. And costs are outside of that domain, unless it would
cause total failure of communication.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol