[73083] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: That MIT paper
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Niels Bakker)
Thu Aug 12 07:36:16 2004
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:35:36 +0200
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Cc: "David G. Andersen" <dga@lcs.mit.edu>
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu,
"David G. Andersen" <dga@lcs.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20040812005429.GC35278@lcs.mit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
David,
* dga@lcs.mit.edu (David G. Andersen) [Thu 12 Aug 2004, 02:55 CEST]:
> Global impact is greatest when the resulting load changes are
> concentrated in one place. The most clear example of that is changes
> that impact the root servers. When a 1% increase in total traffic
> is instead spread among hundreds of thousands of different, relatively
> unloaded DNS servers, the impact on any one DNS server is minimal.
> And since we're talking about a protocol that variously occupies less than
> 3% of all Internet traffic, the packet count / byte count impact is
> negligible (unless it's concentrated, as happens at root and
> gtld servers).
This doesn't make sense to me. You're saying here that a 1% increase in
average traffic is a 1% average increase in traffic. What's your point?
if a load change is concentrated in one place how can the impact be
global?
How can a 1% load increase in one specific place have anything but
minimal impact?
At root and gTLD servers I assume DNS traffic occupies significantly
more than 3% of all traffic there. Still, a 1% increase remains 1%.
-- Niels.
