Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL66] Additional statistical example

I see no compelling need for an example here and it's too late in the day.

Philip
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Erik Guttman" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 11:20 PM
Subject: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL66] Additional statistical example


> Please post discussion of this issue to the mailing list over the 
> next two weeks
> ending May 18, 2004.  In order to accept this issued, we will need a strong WG
> consensus given that this is very late in the process.
> 
> Please see http://www.drizzle.org/~aboba/ZEROCONF/issues.html for a list of
> current issues and their status.
> 
> [LL66]
> 
> Description of Issue: Additional statistical example
> Submitter Name:                 Stuart Cheshire
> Submitter Email Address:        [email protected]
> Date first submitted:           04 May 04
> Reference:
> Comment Type ['t'ech|'e'dit]: t
> Prio ['S' Must|1 should|2 may]: 1
> Section: 1.3
> Rationale/Explanation:
> Lengthy Description:
> 
> >    When these address conflicts are detected, the subsequent forced
> >    reconfiguration may be disruptive, causing TCP connections to be
> >    broken. However, it is expected that such disruptions will be rare.
> >    It should be relatively uncommon for networks to be joined while
> >    hosts on those networks are active. Also, 65024 addresses are
> >    available for IPv4 Link-Local use, so even when two small networks
> >    are joined, the chance of collision for any given host is fairly
> >    small.
> 
> A specific example with numbers: If two 100-host networks are joined,
> there's still a better than 75% chance that not a single host on either
> network will have to select a new address.
> 
> [Erik]
> 
> There has been no demand in successive reviews for further example.
> 
> [Stuart]
> 
> I calculated specific numbers to substantiate the previously vague
> assertion.
> 
> I believe concrete facts are more informative than vagueness.
> 
> [Erik]
> 
> Thanks for the numbers.  My point is that we need to publish this
> document with as few changes as possible.  This is not an editorial
> change.  In my opinion 'fact' assertions generate a lot of debate.
> 
> Requested Change:
> 
> Add to section 1.3
> 
>     This specification is intended for use with small ad-hoc networks - a
>     single link containing only a few hosts. Although 65024 IPv4 Link-
>     Local addresses are available in principle, attempting to use all
>     those addresses on a single link would result a high probability of
>     an address conflict, requiring a host to take an inordinate amount of
>     time to find an available address.
> 
> becomes
> 
>     This specification is intended for use with small ad-hoc networks - a
>     single link containing only a few hosts. Although 65024 IPv4 Link-
>     Local addresses are available in principle, attempting to use all
>     those addresses on a single link would result a high probability of
>     an address conflict, requiring a host to take an inordinate amount of
>     time to find an available address.
> 
>     If two 100-host networks are joined,
>     there's still a better than 75% chance that not a single host on either
>     network will have to select a new address.
>