Re: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 07 September 2012 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D6B21F8512 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a0irkFfFrHst for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og122.obsmtp.com (exprod7og122.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE05521F850C for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob122.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUEp1QWio/gFw5WUqJz59GhjjCyYyHsbk@postini.com; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:29:21 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F6131B8330 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1B8E19005C; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:29:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:29:21 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6
Thread-Index: AQHNhTu7gFlX/ZntC0OFRh8xVQ/AAZdwtBEAgACi1QCAAB9FgIAAA4kAgAABYICADN9FgIAAAfqAgADKnoCAABhfgIAAOiqAgAAMAACAAGdRgIAADogA
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 22:29:20 +0000
Message-ID: <A563FEA0-0A26-431D-BDAA-AD897F691754@nominum.com>
References: <CAL10_Bqa4ftiVhyyf0ezwKR7mzAEOLNi_K3EJFPFUzPnz7QGPw@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F3093@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CAL10_Br=OcWZuar1fDOopevTy_W-3g9TsYqo61rOWm4tKkuYgg@mail.gmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61118003F@GAALPA1MSGUSR9N.ITServices.sbc.com> <CAL10_BpXdx03WfV1PeMKg1zYc1dAFKe1CDNdrcNf45+_EVCBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CDDB9016-BE11-489A-9361-0172D96A464C@nominum.com> <CAOpJ=k2CJS=FuUvFwOq=s2m871_qfo=xROsW=fx0E48w2wxAqQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL10_BoLsdppYKNSfHheYrZg+SfaggoynQf2X11HEdy=ELFUiQ@mail.gmail.com> <5049C317.7090603@gmail.com> <94FA926F-2432-4AE7-BC20-AE7458AB40D9@cisco.com> <CAF4+nEHqRFHbz9qfQuOqpLCNeZqkT=+f53_eCboECfWX8QCt6A@mail.gmail.com> <71F17433-B2D9-4366-9B32-F0E4D294EDB5@nominum.com> <CAF4+nEE6pbmO_ss+3UEpRG1kh2YD20P2KD4CFQ7LwoRZ6gyxsg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEE6pbmO_ss+3UEpRG1kh2YD20P2KD4CFQ7LwoRZ6gyxsg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <15C6AA3B783B5A4887E32ADDCCFD11B3@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 22:29:22 -0000

On Sep 7, 2012, at 5:37 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:
> FNV takes a little more effort than Pearson. It also has a smaller
> footprint in memory. And I believe it will produce statistically
> better results. What are the relative weights of these or other
> factors in this case?

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell neither of the studies you cite compares FNV to Pearson, although the results from Brian Carpenter's study are certainly pretty impressive.    I think more work is worse, smaller footprint probably doesn't matter (this algorithm is being run in DHCP servers, which typically aren't seriously memory-constrained), and statistically better results only matter if it's a pretty big difference, so it's frustrating that we don't have a comparison to the existing algorithm.

To me, the biggest win of using FNV would be if there were an RFC to refer to, but it looks like this is not quite there yet.   So my conclusion is that I certainly don't oppose using FNV instead of Pearson, but I don't see a strong reason to support it either.