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

I agree with Philip - and the concrete example can easily lead to
interminable debate about the assumptions and details of the computation.  I
do not support making this change.

- Ralph

At 12:27 PM 5/7/2004 +0000, Philip Nye wrote:
>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.
> >