Re: To DAD or not to DAD?

On 2/19/15 7:22 AM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
> My take-away from https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-desmouceaux-ipv6-mcast-wifi-power-usage-01 was that the contribution of DAD to the multicast chatter on a network is nothing compared to the contribution of UPnP SSDP and DNS SD/mDNS. And I see these latter as continuing to increase much more than DAD. So doing something to limit DAD really does nothing to solve the broader "multicast" problem.
>
> I would like to see a more holistic approach to solving the problem of vast quantities of multicast traffic, rather than just going after DAD.

The design team has collected a bunch of information around the 
multicast traffic. Ole sent some of the specific drafts in an email 
today. (And elsewhere in the IETF folks are looking at mDNS proxies.) In 
addition to those drafts (and earlier ones from about a year ago) the 
design team has discussed summarizing the space by creating report in an 
Internet Draft.

However, the DAD question is somewhat separate. It came up as a side 
effect of asking the question "is DAD inefficient for hosts that want to 
sleep".
That question resulted in other ways that DAD might need to be improved 
- see the list in the draft. Note that all but two of those items are 
*not* about efficiency but about DAD's ability to detect duplicates when 
they exist on the network.

Regards,
    Erik

> Barbara
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>