Re: Reducing the battery impact of ND

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Erik Nordmark <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>>     One of your "yes please" below is a change to ND - Andrew's b) about
>>     restarting RS would require a (small) standards update.
>>
>>
>> We should try to get that into draft-6man-resilient-rs.
>>
>
> It seems to be out of scope for the problem resilent-rs set out to solve
> which was loss issues for the initial RS. It might not be wise to expand
> that drafts scope to also cover (part of) efficient-nd.
>

To my mind, sending an RS when the RA lifetime is about to expire is a
robustness fix, not an efficiency fix. In a world where IPv6 is optional
and IPv4 is the main protocol, just having your IPv6 address expire is not
necessarily a problem. But in a world where IPv6 is the main protocol, then
hosts will probably want to try harder to keep their IPv6 address around.


> FWIW I don't have a problem with an opt-in update to 4861. I even think
> efficient-nd is the way to go because it reduces overall ND multicast
> traffic and not just your narrow focus on mobile phone battery life.


The tradeoff is that efficient ND adds more state to the network about host
addresses and changes a pretty core part of the IPv6 specs. I think that if
we can reduce the battery impact of multicast traffic, we will have fixed
most of the problem without doing either of those, and to my mind, that's a
much better tradeoff.