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

I made this point as well in December.

I think that an initial random delay is sufficient
to avoid excessive collisions (i.e., to avoid a
storm during a network power-on event).  The subsequent
randomness is unnecessary.

					-Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of Erik Guttman
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 6:12 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL62] Do not space probes
> randomly
> 
> 
> Please post discussion of this issue to the mailing list over the 
> next two weeks
> ending May 18, 2004.  In order to accept this issued, we will 
> need a strong WG
> consensus given that this is very late in the process.
> 
> Please see http://www.drizzle.org/~aboba/ZEROCONF/issues.html 
> for a list of
> current issues and their status.
> 
> [LL62]
> 
> Description of Issue:		Do not space probes randomly
> Submitter Name:                 Stuart Cheshire
> Submitter Email Address:        [email protected]
> Date first submitted:           04 May 04
> Reference:			LL31
> Comment Type ['t'ech|'e'dit]:	t
> Prio ['S' Must|1 should|2 may]:	s
> Section:			2.2.1
> Rationale/Explanation:
> Lengthy Description:
> 
> [Stuart]
> 
> >    When ready to begin probing, the host should then wait 
> for a random
> >    time interval selected uniformly in the range PROBE_MIN 
> to PROBE_MAX
> >    seconds, and should then send NUM_PROBES probe packets, spaced
> >    randomly, PROBE_MIN to PROBE_MAX seconds apart.
> 
> 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.
> 
> [Stuart]
> 
> I disagee.
> 
> I asked frequently for credible debate, but never got any, and the
> *misplaced randomness* was kept in the document. (My objection here is
> not the delay, or even the randomness; it's the pointless 
> inappropriate
> misplaced randomness.)
> 
> I did ask Christian Huitema repeatedly, in public and in 
> private, if he
> was willing to defend this statement that had been attributed 
> to him, but
> he never responded to any of the requests.
> 
> [Erik]
> 
> Requested Change:
> 
> TEXT NEEDED
>