Re: Reducing the battery impact of ND

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <> Sat, 11 January 2014 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 436B81AE132 for <>; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:20:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.638
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.638 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YDDuPf5tB9HX for <>; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:20:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CCA81AE11F for <>; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:20:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=6293; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389471634; x=1390681234; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=9nPoMhsClzIS4HMzwaAK6d0dmLbk8OGOxiiV5Z6J4lc=; b=XKjpzd7IXeMEH9cIpm0HbjMSMwuKkGgi5SPBTuql14A3hk0xvDTO+Fy9 q78Kgjdb5WA5T89lV18fMzwzQ+Xrpde+1/rWXG/pizzSbLAvObUpb4RUq DYNe4/aGjfo+xFyFxLA/bqjJWpFkTalQ+caj/DHVwp4boC6MgICqWVR0W s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.95,644,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="12182736"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2014 20:20:23 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0BKKNiB027853 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:20:23 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 14:20:23 -0600
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <>
To: "cb.list6" <>
Subject: Re: Reducing the battery impact of ND
Thread-Topic: Reducing the battery impact of ND
Thread-Index: AQHPDoVXlkEEUyIkD0G+tLCbRz+K7JqAKsYAgAAHGQD//8Yyfw==
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:20:22 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <EMEW3|2a5cad910dfa2e68d1809f030d2e9d5aq0AHNH03tjc||>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FCF2A441E5CD41B98FFCC4B2F2C62541ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: 6man Chairs <>, Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko <>, Tim Chown <>, 6man WG <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:20:47 -0000

Hi Cameron,

Thanks for sharing this useful info.

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.

I would suspect ipv4-off configuration would have comparable result. IoW, it is the single-stack that drains less battery than that of dual-stack. Nothing specific to v6, one would hope.


On Jan 11, 2014, at 12:48 PM, "cb.list6" <<>> 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.

These phones do a fair amount of background traffic to major ipv6 enabled clouds (google , facebook, yahoo ...) when the screen is of, so that is an ipv6 opportunity missed ... we need a better solution to take to the smartphone oems so they can keep ipv6 on and still meet the battery drain targets.

We already know home routers dont get upgraded ever, so a client based solution would be nice.  Said another way, i can help drive deployment of a client based solution.


IETF IPv6 working group mailing list<>
Administrative Requests: