On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 17:45:03 +1100, Lincoln Dale said:
> At 12:38 AM 7/01/2003 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> > > What was the underlying error rate and distribution you assumed? I
> > > figure if it were high enough to get to your 1%, you'd have such high
> > > retry rates (and resulting throughput loss) that the operator would
> > > notice his LAN was broken weeks before said transfer completed.
> >
> >The average ISP wouldn't notice things were broken unless enough magic
> >smoke escaped to cause a Halon dump.
> >
> >Consider as evidence the following NANOG presentation:
> >http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0210/wessels.html
> >
> >Some *98* percent of all queries at one of the root nameservers over a 24-ho
ur
> >period were broken in some way.
>
> please don't confuse issues.
> i think you just epitomized the quote: "there are lies, damn lies, and
> statistics".
>
> you're trying to say that because there is some broken/buggy nameserver
> code out there, it means that the error-rate for TCP is correct?
No, I'm saying the assertion that "the operator would notice his LAN was broken"
is incorrect.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 07 2003 - 22:00:34 EST