←back to thread

Rapid DHCP: Or, how do Macs get on the network so fast?

(cafbit.com)
354 points timdoug | 2 comments | 12 Jul 11 17:04 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pinko ◴[12 Jul 11 17:41 UTC] No.2755626[source]▶
This is a great example of Apple's detail-oriented focus on real-world user experience, and helps explain why people prefer Macs even if they can't always explain why. Lots of little things just work better. You (where "you" == myself and many others, even if not /you/ personally) are left overall with an experience of less frustration.
replies(2): >>2755752 #>>2756053 #
kcbanner ◴[12 Jul 11 19:12 UTC] No.2756053[source]▶
Is this case the Mac user may get a better UX, but the user who's IP was just stolen has a worse one.
replies(1): >>2756789 #
Locke1689 ◴[12 Jul 11 21:56 UTC] No.2756789[source]▶
I'd like to see evidence that this happens enough to matter. Any time you use a Bloom filter you recognize that doing great in most cases is much better than doing OK in every case.
replies(1): >>2757088 #
1. axiak ◴[12 Jul 11 23:28 UTC] No.2757088[source]▶
What does a bloom filter have to do with this? Generally when someone uses a probabilistic data structure, they ensure its used in a manner that becomes consistent (e.g., as a caching layer). If by not following the dhcp spec, macs are breaking other peoples' connectivity, there's no recovery save them disabling/reenabling the network for them manually.
replies(1): >>2757204 #
2. Locke1689 ◴[13 Jul 11 00:11 UTC] No.2757204[source]▶
First, they don't break the DHCP spec -- everything they do is completely within spec. Second, ARP resolution doesn't require any manual resolution. Third, show me that the OS X ARP system is breaking other peoples' connectivity.

The Bloom filter was an analogy. Optimize for the common case, not the rare case.