[16NG] Re: Review of the ipv6-over-ipv6cs draft

Basavaraj Patil <basavaraj.patil@nokia.com> Fri, 02 February 2007 21:53 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HD6LH-0001Td-4Y; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:53:11 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HD6LF-0001TY-VD for 16ng@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:53:09 -0500
Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.173] helo=mgw-ext14.nokia.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HD6LD-0005V7-Gk for 16ng@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:53:09 -0500
Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-ext14.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id l12LoB94016081; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 23:50:12 +0200
Received: from daebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.111]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 2 Feb 2007 23:52:48 +0200
Received: from daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.113]) by daebh101.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 2 Feb 2007 15:52:36 -0600
Received: from 10.162.252.137 ([10.162.252.137]) by daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.113]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 21:52:35 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 15:54:59 -0600
From: Basavaraj Patil <basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
To: ext Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Message-ID: <C1E90F53.2DA44%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
Thread-Topic: Review of the ipv6-over-ipv6cs draft
Thread-Index: AcdHFMhfBy9Be7MIEduttQARJNUNiA==
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702020746240.785@netcore.fi>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Feb 2007 21:52:36.0077 (UTC) FILETIME=[732FA9D0:01C74714]
X-eXpurgate-Category: 1/0
X-eXpurgate-ID: 149371::070202235012-3EB8DBB0-6F4434B7/0-0/0-1
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9
Cc: 16ng@ietf.org
Subject: [16NG] Re: Review of the ipv6-over-ipv6cs draft
X-BeenThere: 16ng@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: 16ng working group discussion list <16ng.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>, <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/16ng>
List-Post: <mailto:16ng@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>, <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org

Inline:


On 2/2/07 12:01 AM, "ext Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi> wrote:

>>> Even if a default route would be lost while in suspend, I don't see
>>> this as an issue as immediately when the host gets woken up, the
>>> default route could be re-obtained by a) specific RA (if wake up call
>>> was sent by the AR -- at the same time or 20ms later) or b) a RS (if
>>> host decided to wake up).  Later you also said that when a host gets
>>> paged it needs to establish the link, implying that in fact there is
>>> some delay before link can be used after paging.
>> 
>> Well... If the AR is configured to send periodic RAs at regular
>> intervals (MaxRtrAdvInterval), the AR would end up paging the host and
>> waking it up to deliver an RA which is essentially not very useful
>> to the host.
> 
> If this approach were to be chosen, MaxRtrAdvInterval would be set to
> something like 1800 seconds, but for example BS could filter out 80%
> of messages, so an RA would only be sent to MS every 8000 seconds.
> From the perspective of MS, filtering out RAs is indistinguishable
> from it packets getting lost in the network, so this would require no
> host modifications.
> 

Well requiring the BS to filter such messages would be an additional
requirement and not the best option. Also the BS would need to know which
specific RAs are to be filtered, I.e the periodic ones vs the ones that are
solicited by the MS.
Additionally if the host implementation is such that it will wake up to
receive an RA when the MaxRtrAdvInterval is reached it will have the adverse
effect of waking up unnecessarily and wasting battery power and
air0interface resources. Such a host may end up even sending an RS at the
expiry of the MaxRtrAdvInterval in case the RA has been filtered out by the
BS or lost. 

Hence it is better to increase the value of the MaxRtrAdvInterval. This
change does no harm.

-Raj


_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
16NG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng