Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic

[large.hadron.collider at gmx.com (LHC (k9m))]

You need an extra 9 lines to handle the overrun.

On May 23, 2017 12:10:52 PM PDT, valdis.kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
>On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:07:14 -0300, Pedro de Botelho Marcos said:
>
>> Dynamic agreements offer many opportunities. For example, consider
>> acquiring extra "bandwidth as a service" that is available on demand
>just
>> when one needs it, similarly to how one might spin up extra VMs in
>the
>> cloud to handle high loads.
>
>In computer science, all problems can be solved by adding a level of
>indirection.
>
>You've now changed it from lengthy discussion about the connection, to
>lengthy
>discussion about which dynamic agreements both sides are willing to
>support.
>
>Hint:  You can't discuss "bandwidth as a service" without both sides
>talking
>about how much burst capacity might be needed, because the capacity
>would *still*
>require over-provisioning in order to be available if needed.  If both
>ends
>of the link have 1G optics, you're not going to burst to 10G no matter
>how
>many dynamic agreements you have.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.