Re: onlinkassumption-00 comments

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Chirayu Patel wrote:
> > > There is no delay before sending the first one, and for each NS
> > > (MAX_MULTICAST_SOLICIT in number) there is a RETRANS_TIMER wait.
> > > Hence, it will be (MAX_MULTICAST_SOLICIT * RETRANS_TIMER).
> >
> > I mean, there has to be some delay after sending the first address
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> The only delay will be for processing i.e. table lookup etc, and not a
> timer based delay. It will be negligible when compared to RETRANS_TIMER.
> 
> So, for all practical purposes the aggregate delay will be
> (MAX_MULTICAST_SOLICIT * RETRANS_TIMER).

Ok, we were talking past each other.  I thought MAX_MULTICAST_SOLICIT was 
the number of _retransmissions_, but it already seems to include the first 
solicitation (which is not a retransmission but the original 
solicitation).. so we agree.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings