Re: [hybi] Are keep-alives necessary? Was: Re: NAT reset recovery? Was: Extensibility mechanisms?
Bill de hOra <bill@dehora.net> Thu, 22 April 2010 23:16 UTC
Return-Path: <bill@dehora.net>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A40683A6943 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vh-tY2Sb1GaA for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chilco.textdrive.com (chilco.textdrive.com [207.7.108.242]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD4C03A689B for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.12] (unknown [79.97.75.92]) by chilco.textdrive.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8111E01DD for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:16:33 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4BD0D8CF.7090306@dehora.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:16:31 +0100
From: Bill de hOra <bill@dehora.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
References: <s2t927441b31004200917x1d05b3f1jbbe5bb9e270f1c38@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <s2t927441b31004200917x1d05b3f1jbbe5bb9e270f1c38@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [hybi] Are keep-alives necessary? Was: Re: NAT reset recovery? Was: Extensibility mechanisms?
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:16:45 -0000
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Vladimir Katardjiev <vladimir@d2dx.com> wrote: > > Having said that, from a mobile perspective this is disastrous. > In the worst-case scenario, if your keepalive interval is 5 minutes, > you could end up sending a keepalive message every 2.5 minutes. > This would wake up the radio twice as often, and, consequently, > halve battery life. This depends on the network, eg if a keepalive shifts you up to CELL_DCH then you will burn more battery than if you were shifted to CELL_FACH. Battery life is very much a function of the network. Bill
- Re: [hybi] Are keep-alives necessary? Was: Re: NA… Hugh Winkler
- Re: [hybi] Are keep-alives necessary? Was: Re: NA… Jamie Lokier
- [hybi] Are keep-alives necessary? Was: Re: NAT re… Hugh Winkler
- Re: [hybi] Are keep-alives necessary? Was: Re: NA… Vladimir Katardjiev
- Re: [hybi] Are keep-alives necessary? Was: Re: NA… Bill de hOra