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

>Stuart - can you explain which "collision myth" is referred to
>in the second paragraph.  I think there are several.

The unstated unconscious assumption in so much of the discussion on this 
mailing list that, if two machines send packets at the same time, then 
inevitably one or both get lost.

If you re-read past discussion you'll see that it's never stated, but 
almost always assumed. To pick one recent example:

>the chance we need to avoid is that
>you and I both agree on ALL FOUR values in our series

Why do we "need" to avoid this?

The assumption behind that statement, and so many like it, is that it 
would be a catastrophe if two machines were to send at the same time, and 
consequently the protocol needs extra mechanisms to avoid this 
catastrophe. This assumption is felt to be so self-evident that it is 
never stated explicitly, just assumed as a universally accepted axiom.

The fact is that spreading the first packet uniformly over a one-second 
interval offers a dramatic benefit by eliminating a potentially large 
synchronized burst. The faulty logic is to conclude from this, "If some 
randomness is good, then more randomness must be better, right?"

Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer, Inc.
 * www.stuartcheshire.org