IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Reducing the battery impact of ND

Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko <ayourtch@gmail.com> Sat, 11 January 2014 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ayourtch@gmail.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 DEAAA1AE058 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:18:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 8dETKXm2KoQr for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:18:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qe0-x229.google.com (mail-qe0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11141AE020 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:18:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qe0-f41.google.com with SMTP id gh4so5905622qeb.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:17:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=b5SddNod4cTPqW+b7ws7TyALgPiiu0EoXYnreSJvJOA=; b=eXFEEFBx/wMLPYLx3MIVrUGBnJrpPSPG4oagavhTwdRyfQMIvcgnGGbrt4VDij7tJe krZRZ6LTSWOVcWgk+M/u8GJPy4Bkjzjs5On7MWwSsDRjm1shKNtCmio6ffFbE2bBJJLs P3ILnjReYDunliIB9m2r5RPmWpu8AvHv+ze/PPrfC/bW0IM0WKeikUpKfL21K1YQPaJw pffnz28FUiRX9RqDjDXLjHsVBD+NiJPtXo0qDcUJ6CGj1OM16QZqs9c4rzCwY6vS0BbO IqDf6EQGR5NC7w1QZhXraLXh/NN5K1LG7TRkFLWvs150cyy0FIBh4uQNHPJMkwIfVmMW jeWQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.97.134 with SMTP id l6mr21957493qcn.11.1389471473285; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:17:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.96.133.39 with HTTP; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:17:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGQF-xfaJkCp5gHP9aRqGtey8Kg2HMNhbJLbzz4vfPwF8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A5059F83-F870-4669-94CF-FCD6963DB2F0@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <CAKD1Yr29S=O5L4DfhNoiVieWPkgBJ2veuOu6ig5rwgK4ELz7Xw@mail.gmail.com> <EMEW3|2a5cad910dfa2e68d1809f030d2e9d5aq0AHNH03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|A5059F83-F870-4669-94CF-FCD6963DB2F0@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <CAD6AjGQF-xfaJkCp5gHP9aRqGtey8Kg2HMNhbJLbzz4vfPwF8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:17:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPi140MsXD_F5v=NctmB7jZdo9WvcphXL4de7T6MaxkewU6BDg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Reducing the battery impact of ND
From: Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko <ayourtch@gmail.com>
To: "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 15:17:40 -0800
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, 6man WG <ipv6@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: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:18:05 -0000

On 1/11/14, cb.list6 <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't have much to offer this thread yet from a technical solution
> perspective, but i can share that Samsung and others deactivate ipv6 when
> the smartphone screen is off due to battery issues with ipv6 and wifi.
>
> This is not for anyone to judge, this is a problem statement and the
> current solution deployed on 10s (100s) of millions of hosts that go from
> dual-stack to single stack when the screen is off. We do do quantitative
> battery drain studies, and the ipv6-off configuration is meaningful better.

Is this with or without IPv6 configured (thus, RAs) on the home gateway ?

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this could be one of the cases
where the WiFi chipset is IPv4-smart and IPv6-unsmart, therefore
requiring the CPU for anything IPv6 related..

Did you have a chance to further narrow down the root cause of this ?

--a

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status