"Sean" == <sgorman1@gmu.edu> writes:
>> 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... Sean> Is that the supposition stated in the paper? No. Sean> The reason being it contradicts quite a bit of similar Sean> research. Nodes inside and outside of the core do not Sean> typically disconnect at the same rate. References? Note that I posited that the rate was proportional, not the same. Sean> The nodes outside of the core on the other hand are much Sean> more sparsely connected. 55% of them are trees meaning that Sean> they only have one connection. There is no back up link, so Sean> if their big hub node goes down they are out of commission. That's more or less what I said. If the trees are evenly distributed around the core, and you take away 2% of the core, you can expect 2% of the trees to disappear too. Of course 2% of the trees is a much larger number of nodes than 2% of the core. Sean> Hence you could have large numbers of nodes outside the core Sean> disconencted before you would see any effect inside the Sean> core. By the time the core goes non-linear the periphery is Sean> gonna be long gone and disconnected. True iff the links to the periphery are not evenly distributed across the core, which is my, perhaps faulty, underlying assumption. Does UUNet still own most of the trees? -w