Re: revisit protocol constants ??

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Thomas,

On 01/22/2014 03:55 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Here is an excerpt from my review of the stable addresses document. I
> wonder if we should rethink some of the protocol constants we are
> defining. The world is becoming more diverse and it seems that a "one
> size fits all" notion for some protocol constants is making less and
> less sense.
> 
>> Finally, I want to raise a generic issue that applies to this
>> document, but really is a general problem. The document adds a random
>> delay between 0 and IDGEN_DELAY in order to avoid lock-step
>> behavior. While that is a good thing, Using IDGEN_DELAY of 1 second is
>> pretty long for some network technologies (think data center with 10G
>> or higher interfaces). I wonder if we should stop using constants that
>> are fixed and make them more dependent on actual network
>> technology. E.g., 1 second seems OK for WiFi, but not for 10G.

I'd say that I generally agree with your point of view... But the
IDGEN_DELAY is really a bad example.

We're talking about waiting for *at most* 1 second (say, 0.5 seconds in
the general case) and *only* when two 64-bit random numbers collide.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492