Re: [Tsvwg] table size (was Re: WGLC for Port Randomization starts now (April 1st))

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Mark Allman wrote:

> As I **said above**, I found that a table of 10 entries works fine for
> collision **avoidance**.
> 
> You can likely dream up some scenario whereby a bigger table size does
> in fact reduce the collision rate.  Or, perhaps whereby you can reduce
> the collision rate to less than zero.  I prefer just looking at the
> data, but realize YMMV.
> 
> Again, I am not asking you to say a table size of 10 is somehow ideal.
> I am just saying that we have some data that suggests it is OK in some
> environments and that plus a note that increasing the size increases the
> obfuscation seems perfectly reasonable to me.  

I agree with this. In particular, when the sentence includes the phrase
"in some environments". That's the only thing I was arguing.


> I don't see how pulling
> some number out thin air is better.  I don't see how your number is
> justified.  If you want to use it, great, I don't care.  But, I don't
> see why we need to be recommending or suggesting this completely made up
> value.

I had already agreed that I would be removing the value 1024. I was only
arguing that "a table of 10 is enough" is misleading. Something along
the lines of "[Allman] has found that in some environments a table size
of 10....". That's all.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1