Re: problem statement [was Re: New Version Notification for draft-hinden-ipv4flag-00.txt]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 19 November 2017 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B16126CF9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 11:28:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LOLSDA4punby for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 11:28:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x234.google.com (mail-pf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55E08126CF6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 11:28:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id l24so5669100pfj.6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 11:28:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bD4ukzRiyGm4J5o9W1NP0azAUUi5VRHxfj8dKADR2F0=; b=iJOTsdT5VrWOArj9VgGTOY69QE8nqvXrakvDQ62f9IEPfleBQqKZ9R7wHzNe/rm4s3 chBz11BZTkqSkHarUWMR/PEYAQO9BcZW2B07S8KUC2yE6vRvVW752vGWfPwZPVq26ekm Rv8GC1le5RejCj+8TFw7WNChl93pN+pdRYGnJKau/AHKfeK1/LwXN3Nh+trgyTSb+Hhp bgoonE471zyx0THoafn7l1qFMBQN0SAzahvpMK7Us/aYmWdtWntJWvX9u/kill7XMt/p K2L8elwSIpMiqZPjINwllNFnRKHwrUsTBYjQ/LwT1s4yHwVU9X55Cs6uwsNHNIrl0FyJ +LRQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bD4ukzRiyGm4J5o9W1NP0azAUUi5VRHxfj8dKADR2F0=; b=aiN5TVEo1hwrmUqaendrqwaQfO2tuPJwqK9+MHUFvZiu74ziC9orGt/5TZ/QYynPDD e9+IShd0xxNXD/hpo7Mkf9upRcxY7wmjEhaDSVLEZeD7hAEUmE0HU9xYM7ZaykQxlwjv sPMigLuoZUofEMcCFyBbiJJZsinie9BSoOm0IPXlooH4QWKZGTBo9guWykDOY9s78yZb iQmfGPd5U20gITU0ys0KYMKnC8nFGovcDiO75x3iJN5qgs7B3lM40Ehju2pib/f05w2b gingNLSow5SbuSVtajrmgDzreHkB1AcnB7Zq8sX5UdcSrrltuDANP5OU+SYL4IpKo2sR PgJA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5OUOwp5ETKbFdA11KcYtOvKnRQ2YnIUwbVk+40HiU48xTkOqEj IQRxEpXYsLNFbI4cFrZWSSduKA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYuLIyljVy1EppyBdS4GbFKGq14qhBNxJbfq+tM6Pnh6tl1F0vhd+aSUwdZ8xUyw6sMSPg0hQ==
X-Received: by 10.84.235.136 with SMTP id p8mr11413026plk.263.1511119734808; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 11:28:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e001:3d21:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e001:3d21:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o88sm15759734pfj.175.2017.11.19.11.28.52 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 19 Nov 2017 11:28:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: problem statement [was Re: New Version Notification for draft-hinden-ipv4flag-00.txt]
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <151090059151.22321.3357672601322845792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E838C63E-7612-4AA4-9375-854C184D699E@gmail.com> <CAFU7BAQKoWPcEFQZgU3k_d0gUL4en6d2pyNq1V4RMNZ6HrSG8w@mail.gmail.com> <649be36e-5006-7688-448f-bc2794d6a39c@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3WC+vwL_=0PeiJ_D85NqFVTCkb8c83x-ZtGhAbSELGMA@mail.gmail.com> <5A119443.2030108@foobar.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <3d606744-a2b6-e310-da5e-39f46c21e5a7@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 08:28:49 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5A119443.2030108@foobar.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Y5QlXugJY0PYxbU1DVQW9F_NhPg>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 19:28:58 -0000

On 20/11/2017 03:25, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> Let's not forget about battery life. According to the numbers in RFC
>> 7772, on a phone even just sending DHCPv4 packets every 2 minutes could
>> reduce battery life by ~8% compared to a completely idle device.
> 
> is there any guarantee in this situation that any other apps would not
> be chattering in the background over ipv6 anyway?  From what I've seen
> on tcpdump, mobile phones tend to be extraordinarily noisy, and a dhcpv4
> packet every two minutes would, in any situation where I've examined
> mobile phone traffic from normal handsets, be nothing more than
> background noise.
> 
> Also, the whole internet isn't a mobile phone network, and what might be
> relevant or appropriate on a cell network might not be in any way
> relevant to another type of network.  

My phone has been instructed to prefer WiFi when there is a choice.

> Without meaning to state the
> obvious, it would be important to take this into account when framing
> any problem statement.
> 
> One relatively straightforward way of dealing with extraneous dhcpv4
> packets would be to create a new dhcpv4 reply option hinting to the
> requester to cease DHCPv4 requests on the interface in question, or to
> slow down the request rate from one every two minutes to one every X
> minutes where X is network defined.

The hypothesis of this draft is that there is no IPv4 support, hence
nobody to send a DHCP(v4) reply.

otoh, unable to resist solutionism even in this thread, a minor update
to RFC2131 would allow battery-powered devices to slow down the
DHCPDISCOVER rate as much as they want to.

    Brian