IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: To DAD or not to DAD?

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> Thu, 19 February 2015 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <bs7652@att.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25921A90EC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 07:27:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 qDpqGvmEQsZ3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 07:27:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com [209.65.160.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE9681A898E for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 07:24:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unknown [144.160.229.23] (EHLO alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.4-5) with ESMTP id 93006e45.2b4be9274940.2296984.00-2400.6492621.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from <bs7652@att.com>); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:24:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 54e6003915b654f1-173b171bb00140d52b043ffb45f89fb29cc9deb6
Received: from unknown [144.160.229.23] (EHLO alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.4-5) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 6cff5e45.0.2296008.00-2088.6489795.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from <bs7652@att.com>); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:22:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 54e5ffca47095bb9-5eac02e116e4870b265fc83fc69f50be3dbb00cd
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t1JFMkdA014701; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:22:46 -0500
Received: from alpi131.aldc.att.com (alpi131.aldc.att.com [130.8.218.69]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t1JFMeQx014640 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:22:42 -0500
Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAC.ITServices.sbc.com (GAALPA1MSGHUBAC.itservices.sbc.com [130.8.218.152]) by alpi131.aldc.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:22:32 GMT
Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.126]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAC.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.152]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:22:31 -0500
From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Subject: RE: To DAD or not to DAD?
Thread-Topic: To DAD or not to DAD?
Thread-Index: AQHQS7On1aan/PXPZUa6gCBzeEyfTJz3do4AgACHrICAADK/gIAABESAgAALZQCAAAXLAP//ydmw
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:22:32 +0000
Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130F29C24@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <54E4EC1A.3080303@acm.org> <54E531AE.9080603@gmail.com> <C82C46A6-450F-4BB9-9BFF-12299A87DFAD@employees.org> <D10C1907.5B45D%hesham@elevatemobile.com> <66AC3D9F-CE39-424B-A071-B5FE65809416@employees.org> <D10C237E.5B466%hesham@elevatemobile.com> <958B43FE-81BC-4F86-B979-7881667C716D@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <958B43FE-81BC-4F86-B979-7881667C716D@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.70.220.19]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=V6DKJ5bi c=1 sm=1 a=VXHOiMMwGAwA+y4G3/O+aw==:17 a]
X-AnalysisOut: [=uWZrq5uU2QUA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=zQP]
X-AnalysisOut: [7CpKOAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32RAAAA:8 a=0HtSIViG9nkA:10 a=48vgC7mUA]
X-AnalysisOut: [AAA:8 a=GCyRUyiwMwXjTcJydfMA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10]
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2014051901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <bs7652@att.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.229.23]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ZyxbB96EEip6bXxT74WM0eDbJDY>
Cc: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:27:07 -0000

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.
Barbara

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email