IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Reducing the battery impact of ND

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Thu, 30 January 2014 11:12 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
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 E6CE41A0485 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 03:12:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 a_B5QWGfU6Fu for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 03:12:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com (mail-wg0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17B491A042C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 03:12:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id y10so5962012wgg.10 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 03:12:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=lVka9uGS7igzsUHSie0JVnvoOtTGAGZtXrxl6A6PaWQ=; b=Q8S0j4Q6StUuKyk8+H/3CNNpbifXf2zn1zmTzBS03tCvN6Mq+xF1wcV7nTqei+5F+i I49w3qvDmToPwecueGZt3bJVEEfRWEP+hYl0J2mUotj4r151tCBhi44zvyKlpKkr9rdk 9/QJ2M+3fhWDUsXnD6umUYGheNVNpeKkIhwKuQuMOxQQhVn2Abt23iHssSGkLBay7iVo tWgt4jsCJgXYlDkf9nqpK/raduQzL/z2gpbAsKkGebnFH5hR/BEuwaXAMSjAcOTLVUS2 DnxiYdM/abNyrDN0Ybl+VBgPPT7QoFoxYivByqQHAFI29ZWzCN5y9xTnVtHgq4x5DwRU 2Ssg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnfN3vSfPGU26MJarOR1/M40v2JII73eWNCljA74I6Ec0PQCGglMRDPDpLVV2OXXjEaSt0u
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.73.173 with SMTP id m13mr11440116wiv.52.1391080323279; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 03:12:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.54.167 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 03:12:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [204.194.22.7]
In-Reply-To: <2CFF305E-DE44-4D57-82D3-241196D94610@employees.org>
References: <CAKD1Yr29S=O5L4DfhNoiVieWPkgBJ2veuOu6ig5rwgK4ELz7Xw@mail.gmail.com> <52D96663.6060005@sonic.net> <CAKD1Yr3pCQ15uFz36MvKG3Q_Vzt27ws0aG1=94377FFaJtWV7g@mail.gmail.com> <52DA0ABA.8030903@acm.org> <CAKD1Yr1zSfAOv8j9XgB_ph9uaUUNW0yrJhfjJTsSTYHNKYNx9A@mail.gmail.com> <52E03BB4.8040309@acm.org> <DCA1F00D-0775-4030-A3BF-700F01F98C35@employees.org> <52E0423A.5070906@acm.org> <01DC3532-C73A-4644-A323-04BE6231AADA@employees.org> <52E9EF2D.9050402@acm.org> <2CFF305E-DE44-4D57-82D3-241196D94610@employees.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:12:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHw9_i+0DKS7pTFmRaajdX0=R9yhY7=6gXs2nV_vEKqEsz=d2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Reducing the battery impact of ND
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>, Andrew Yourtchenko <ayourtch@gmail.com>, 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: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:12:10 -0000

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> Erik,
>
>> The frustrating thing is that the same folks that argue that the WG shouldn't work on a different design (targeting multicast challenged links), keep on suggesting tweaks. If the WG thinks we should work on improving ND for such links (and perhaps also improve it for battery operated hosts), then let's do that work. If not, then let's stop suggesting tweaks.
>
> before designing anything new, I would like to see:
>  - a clear description of the problem(s)
>  - an analysis of how well we can do with existing protocols
>

... and can someone please remind me what exactly was wrong with ARP?
Other than the fact that v4 uses it?!

W


> does that sound fair?
>
> cheers,
> Ole
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email