Re: [dhcwg] RFC 3315 - Dhcpv6 client message retransmission question

[Bud Millwood <budm at weird-solutions.com>]

On Tuesday 20 October 2009, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> The randomization is +0.1 to -0.1 ... so this impact is small (it does
> mean that the limit, which is also subject to randomization, could be 33
> seconds to 27 seconds). I don't think it really changes much of anything
> in my analysis and the point I was trying to make.

Neither do I. It was a bit of a tongue in cheek comment about DHCPv4 clients 
with no randomization whatsoever.

Out of curiosity, why was +-0.1 chosen over DHCPv4's +-1.0 for each 
re-transmission? This is less spread with higher peak volume - what was the 
motivation for it?

> I guess you're predicting that DHCPv6 will hit the big time in 2012?

OK... it's a prediction. Maybe we should start a pool. :)

- Bud

> - Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Bud Millwood
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 8:22 AM
> To: dhcwg at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC 3315 - Dhcpv6 client message retransmission
> question
>
> On Saturday 17 October 2009, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> > ... but as the delay between retransmissions should be
> > doubled with each attempt up to a maximum of 30 seconds (REQ_MAX_RT),
> > the difference between 10 and 5 may be as much as 5*30 seconds = 150
> > seconds.
>
> To the guy in 2012 who is going to make our lives miserable because
> you're too
> overworked to read the RFC: That is **doubled WITH RANDOMIZATION**!
>
> - Bud
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg



-- 
Bud Millwood
Weird Solutions, Inc.
http://www.weird-solutions.com
tel: +46 8 758 3700
fax: +46 8 758 3687