RE: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL62] Do not space probes randomly

> [LL62]
> 
> Description of Issue:		Do not space probes randomly
>
> ...
> 
> Why space probes randomly? I have still not seen any credible
> justification for this, neither credible theoretical analysis, nor
> experimental data. This text was introduced because of a
misunderstanding
> of something Christian Huitema said a year ago, and it's been in the
> document ever since. An initial random delay is justified. Further
> randomness is just voodoo.
> 
> [Erik]
> 
> This was debated frequently in the WG over the past year and in each
> case the delay was kept in the document. If you really believe that
the
> current text is not reasonable, please contact Christian and see if he
> agrees with you.  As I recall, the WG agreed with Christian, who
> supported this text and we ended with rough consensus, with you in a
> dissenting position. See LL31.

The really important part is the initial randomization. It is then
important that each successive trial be space by a sufficient delay. But
it is also important to randomize the second delay to avoid "persistent
bad luck", i.e. the situation where N hosts pick the same initial delay
and then all repeat all of their NUM_PROBE packets at the same time.
Since you need to have a random number generation ready in any case the
implementation overhead is negligible, so why not do the right thing?

-- Christian Huitema