Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-grand : saving lookups

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

We have some Ted;

In large meetings we measured way above 100 ND multicast messages per second on the wire, for 90 minutes in a row.

This was on the wire because we use proprietary tech to dampen the wireless side, things like ND proxy but based on snooping for the lack of a better information.

I asked for the figures at the last 2 in person IETF meetings but never got them. First time I asked too late, there needs to be due process to guarantee anonymity. Not sure if they were captured in Singapore and if so where they are.

Take care,

Pascal

> Le 9 août 2020 à 18:04, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> a écrit :
> 
> Do we have data that indicates that this would be an improvement?  
> 
>> On Aug 9, 2020, at 11:47, Philip Homburg <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> So what I'm after is the host behavior of "not onlink" for the
>>> lookup phase, the router behavior of onlink for the redirect phase,
>>> and the L bit set iff the link is P2P or a transit. E.g., in a
>>> distributed fabric, all addresses "reside on-link and can be reached
>>> directly without going through a router" and yet we want to avoid
>>> broadcast lookups.
>> 
>> Suppose we have a no-multicast bit, that tells a host to send traffic to
>> its default router when it doesn't have a neighbor in the NC cache.
>> 
>> It is not clear to me how the semantics would be different from clearing the
>> L-bit, but if you think there are considerable differences, why no write 
>> a draft that describes the use of such a bit.
>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------