[53713] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Network integrity and non-random removal of nodes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Waites)
Thu Nov 21 14:17:44 2002
To: <sgorman1@gmu.edu>
Cc: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>, nanog@merit.edu
From: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
Date: 21 Nov 2002 14:14:32 -0500
In-Reply-To: <4d70124d0f5b.4d0f5b4d7012@gmu.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>>> "Sean" == <sgorman1@gmu.edu> writes:
Sean> it says nothing about what will happen to the other 91.7% of
Sean> nodes. Considering that 55% of the remaining nodes are
Sean> trees, they will be saying "Houston we have a problem" well
Sean> before 25%.
The supposition would be that the remaining nodes are evenly
distributed around the core so the percentage of nodes outside of the
core without connectivity should be roughly the same as the percentage
of nodes removed from the core. At least until the core goes
non-linear...
>> It would be interesting to see what outdegree looks like as a
>> function of rank -- in the paper they give only the maximum and
>> average (geo. mean) outdegrees. Is there also a critical point
>> 25% of the way through the ranking? Probably not or one would
>> expect they'd have mentioned it...
It turns out that this is buried in one of the graphs (fig. 6) and
does not appear to have any special properties 25% of the way through.
It does have an inflection point around the 1000th node or so (2.5%).
-w
